My primary objective in this investigation is
to provide a sketch of some of the meanings of the term 'United
States,' and scrutinize how the general misinterpretation of this
key term, and others, has led to the incorrect deciphering of the
Internal Revenue Code which has prompted most Americans to falsely
believe that they have always had some legal obligation to fill out
a Form W-4, to file a return, and to pay income tax although I do
stray from this point considerably, in addressing tax and other
matters. But basic is defining the United States.

I can not stress too strongly that despite the
many aspects of tax law that are dealt with,
it was never my intent to
provide tools, in any manner, for confronting the IRS.
Preparation for such interfacing requires exacting knowledge of
proper
strategies andprocedure, to
which I do not even allude.
That is a whole other area of study, which I cannot
adequately go into here. At times, an ingenuous scribbled reply has
prevailed, in a response to a request for an overdue tax return
(CP-515 to 518) but don t count on it! And, if you think merely
quoting some law, or regulation, or interpretation of facts will do
the trick, please restrain yourself.

This is, rather, a diligent inquiry into the
true nature of the matters examined, and nothing in this paper
should be construed as legal advice. I am only presenting the
results of my research, based on the codes, statutes, court cases,
government manuals, directives, Treasury Orders, etc. all of which
are referenced and, usually, quoted in pertinent part. I apologize
for any undocumented statement that I might have carelessly made.
Ignore it.

By the end of this paper, I hope to have proven
to your complete satisfaction that the government, being
constitutionally constrained, as it is, was really not able to do a
thorough job of encrypting its code for almost everything has to be,
by law, and is, spelled out. Therefore, those who are sufficiently
pertinacious, and have unbiased eyes to see, can eventually arrive
at an adequately clear picture. But, once again, this a theoretical
examination of certain topics, and
not an attempt to suggest
any course of action in confronting the IRS.

As a matter of fact, with one notable
exception, strategies that successfully deal with the IRS
have no need to employ the
interpretation espoused in this paper, viz. that when the
Internal Revenue Code, uses the term United States, except where it
specifies otherwise, refers only to the federal States,
such as the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto
Rico, etc., and federal possessions and enclaves in other words,
what I will often refer to as the federal zone. To take one of many
examples, if one were to simply ask the IRS for the section in the
code that required her/him to file a return and obligated him/her to
pay income tax, the definition of United States' would, obviously,
be utterly irrelevant.

There is, as mentioned, one strategy that does
employ this knowledge. I only call attention to it because for a
quarter of a century it has enabled thousands of knowledgeable
Americans to be reclassified to the status of one not obligated to
pay income tax
and this speaks volumes as
to the veracity of the explication in this paper of the term United
States, as used in the IRC. Because this strategy rests
entirely on this
interpretation. In a word, it involves the proper utilization of
IRC 6013(g)(4) Termination of election (A) Revocation by
taxpayers, which I comment on pages 10, and especially page 46.

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MEANING

OF THE TERM UNITED STATES

TOGETHER WITH SOME OTHER RELATED TERMS

AND SELECTED MATTERS HAVING

TO DO WITH TAXATION

I doubt if many Americans have ever given a
second thought to the meaning of the term United States, or would
believe that it could be a perplexing question. It would have my
vote, however, as being by far the most important and controversial
word (or term) of art, vocabula artis also referred to as a
statute term, leading word (or term), or what the French call
parol de ley, technical word of law in all American legal
writings as well as the most dangerous. For it is ambivalent,
equivocal, and ambiguous. Indeed, as you will see, its use in the
law exemplifies patent ambiguity, which is defined as:

An ambiguity apparent on face of instrument [sic] and arising
by reason of any inconsistency or inherent uncertainty of
language used so that effect is either to convey no definite meaning
or confused meaning.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition. Emphasis
added.)

Reading Hamlet in the park this afternoon, I
chanced on to an intriguing way to put it. In the words of King
Claudius:

The harlot's cheek, beautified with plast ring art,
Is not more ugly to the thing that helps it
Than is my deed to my most painted word.
O heavy burden! (III, I, 51-54. Emphasis added.)

The editor, Harold Jenkins, in his notes on
painted says: " fair but false in appearance, like the beauty of the
painted cheek." What serendipity to find this, just as I am on my
final proofing of this paper. It is so appropriate, to describe how
'United States' usually is used by the government. And it has indeed
imposed on us all a heavy burden !

With dogged determination and perseverance,
however, one can succeed in seeing through this meticulous and
painstakingly contrived duplicity. For, fortunately, Congress
must define all
terms that it uses in a particular and special way. For example, in
the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), chapter 79 Definitions,
Section 7701 Definitions, it states: "(a) When
used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or
manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof " It goes on, then,
to define many terms of art. These definitions apply throughout the
code, "where not otherwise distinctly expressed" which will
sometimes be done for a single chapter, section, subsection,
or even sentence
which, you will later see, can be very instructive.

I fear that such analysis can be tedious, and
for this I apologize. I will try to be as pithy and compendious as
possible, but I am not writing merely to express opinions; I am
writing to prove the points I discuss. And I will worry a question
like a bull dog, until I am satisfied that I have presented enough
hard data to conclusively establish my particular contention,
especially in the eyes of those of a different persuasion. For there
are intelligent and respected researchers, for whom I have the
greatest regard, who do not agree, for example, with my
interpretation of the meaning of 'United States' in Title 26, as
well as in all the other titles.

The history of the usage of United States, from
the time of the American colonies to the present, is remarkably
complex. This is thoroughly investigated in an easy-reading yet
scholarly book that I highly recommend, by Sebastian de Gracia, A
Country With No Name, Pantheon, 1997. Herein, however, I will
have occasion to avail myself of virtually nothing from this
wonderful tome. When I think of this, it astonishes even me. But my
focus is primarily on the relevance of this term as it relates to
the law, especially tax law, to which he simply doesn t allude at
least in the way I do.

Before getting started, let me give you just a
hint as to why it is so extremely important to have an absolutely
correct interpretation of the term United States, but also, in the
two quotes below, nonresident alien, and gross income.

This preview is an important section from the
IRC, which is Title 26, also written in cites as 26 United States
Code or 26 USC, Section (the symbol or, often, as in this paper,
these are omitted)

(a) General rule. In the case of a nonresident alien
individual gross income includes only (1) gross income which is
derived from sources within the United States and which is not
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business
within the United States, and (2) gross income which is
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business
within the United States

An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is
neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the
United States

and I think you will agree that the cardinal
conundrum here indeed the very crux is the determination as to what
is meant by the term "United
States"
and, above, nonresident alien. For, under certain circumstances
we see that the nonresident alien is not subject to any federal
income tax if his relationship to the United States is of a certain
nature.

The United States is an abstraction given
substantiality when delegated duties began to be performed, and when
1:8:17 of the Constitution was implemented, which provided for land
for the seat of government, as well as forts, magazines, arsenals,
dockyards, and other needful buildings.
Upon thus acquiring land, it also became a geographical entity,
as well as a government.

To begin with, one must remember, as the
Supreme Court said, "the term United States is a metaphor." (A
figure of speech.
Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon,
262 U.S. 100, 122. Note that U.S. in a cite like this indicates
the U.S. Supreme Court.) The philosopher Jose Ortega y Gassett
believes that "[t]he metaphor is perhaps one of man s most fruitful
potentialities. Its efficacy verges on magic." But beware, there is
black magic as well as white magic. In other words, as Lakoff and
Johnson point out in
Metaphors We Live By, metaphors can create reality for us,
and can become symbols that "structure our conceptual system." That
is, they can impede the clarity of our thinking. For, as you will
see, there are numerous meanings of the term United States, though
the government seeks to obscure this.

In the following section, you will see that you
should develop the habit of always asking both yourself, and those
who speak to you of it,
WHICHUnited States? O.K., let us begin our Odyssey.

The lengthy insular cases were settled in 1901,
when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on De Lima v. Bidwell, 182
U.S. 1 and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In the latter,
Justice Harlan dissented with the following words:

The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in
arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially
or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained
under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to
be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that
instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the
earth are accustomed to exercise. (at 380)

Balzac v. Porto(sic) Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) reaffirmed (at 305) that
the United States, under 4:3:2 of the Constitution, has exclusive
power over the territories outside the union states. It is in no way
bound, in its municipal laws, by what Jefferson called the chains of
the Constitution. But, also the reverse applies:

criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted
to federal reservations over which the federal government has
exclusive jurisdiction
as well as to [federal] forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards,
or other needful buildings.
[18 U.S.C. §451(3)(d). (Emphasis added.)]

It is autonomous within the areas over which it
has complete legislative jurisdiction the District of
Columbia, Guam and the other federal or territorial
States
and enclaves, etc. Statutory "citizens and nationals of the United
States" per 8 U.S.C. §1401, (in this paper lower
case c indicates a federal citizen) domiciled therein, are given
civil rights, i.e., statutory and, therefore, retractable
privileges. They do not have the
unalienable rights of state Citizens. In brief, Daniel
Webster was ultimately ruled to be right:

"The Constitution was made for the states, not the
territories."

Two years after the 14th Article of
Amendment to the Constitution was said to have been ratified, this
very interesting decision was promulgated by the California Supreme
Court:

I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the
District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to
the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States in
the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but
it is evident that
they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens
of the [s]tates.
They are not constituents of any community in which is vested
any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character
of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the
laws of the [federal] United States, but have no voice in its
management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of
these laws is derived from the sanction of Government in which
they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but
the political rights of [C]itizens they cannot enjoy until they
are organized into a State, and admitted into the [u]nion.
[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 [1870].
(Emphasis added.)]

Of course, the creation of Constitutional
"citizens of the
United States" dates back to July 9, 1868, when the 14th
Article of Amendment was fraudulently declared to be ratified.
(Please allow me to remind you of the oft-quoted statement by judge
Ellett, of the Utah Supreme Court:

"I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its
faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly
approved and adopted."
[State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series,
Vol. 540, page 941-942 (1975)]

I must point out that the wording in the 14th
Amendment reveals something very important. For it speaks of "citizens
of the United States" and "citizens
of the state wherein they reside." This is the first time that the
word "citizen" as used in the Constitution was not capitalized.
Every amendment to the Constitutiohn after the enactment of the
Fourteenth Amendment that referred to the word "citizen" used this
new capitalization. This type of lower case "citizen of the
United States" within the constitutional context is a superset of
the capital C "Citizen", consisting of the upper case "Citizen" used
in earlier versions of the Constitution with additional classes of
persons eventually added to include:

Blacks. See the Thirteenth Amendment.

Women. See the 19th Amendment.

White males under age 21 who are eligible to vote but
formerly were prohited by most state laws from voting because
underage. See 26th Amendment.

The imporant thing to remember that most people
get confused about is that there are TWO contexts in which one may
be a "citizen":

Statutory.
This type of citizen is described in 8 U.S.C. §1401 and:
1.1 Has a domicile on federal territory and is physically
present on federal territory.
1.2 Is a "subject" as described earlier in People v. De La
Guerra above because subject to the exclusive or general or
plenary jurisdiction of the Congress under Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the Constitution.
1.3 Is NOT protected by the Constitution.
1.4 Is a "national" (see 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)), meaning a
member of the nation under the law of nations. 8 U.S.C. §1401
describes these types of statutory citizens as "citizens.
AND nationals
of the United States".

Constitutional.
This type of citizen is subject to the subject matter but not
exclusive or plenary jurisdiction of the national government.
They have a domicile within a constitutional but not statutory
state of the Union and are therefore protected by the
Constitution. This includes:
2.1 "Citizens" as used in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 and
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3.
2.2 "citizens of the United States" mentioned in the Fourteenth
Amendment and subsequent amendments.

Henceforth, lower case usage in a
statutory context
only indicates a federal government subject, termed a "statutory
U.S. citizen", and described in 8 U.S.C. §1401. Not, be it noted, a
citizen of any land or country, but, as the courts have ruled, of a
government.
Statutory "U.S. citizens" are
government citizens--which, as you will see, is exceedingly
significant. State Citizens are free wo/men on the land. All rights
attach to land. All privileges attach to statutory statuses,
such as "citizen". Rights are unalienable while privileges and
the rights that attach to the statuses under the franchise that
enforces the privilege, are revocable at the whim of congress.

The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal
Constitution created two classes of citizens, one of the United
States and the other of the state.
[Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 427, 17 Am. Rep. 738]

There are, then, two classes of citizens; one of the United
States, and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist
in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of
the District of Columbia.
[Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788,
790, 791, 160 Ala. 155]

In the second sentence of the 14th Article of
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States it says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
" (Emphasis added.)

Seven years later, the Supreme Court made the distinction crystal
clear:

"We have in our political system a government of the United
States and a government of each of the several States. Each one
of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has
citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights,
within its jurisdiction, it must protect." [U.S.
v. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 588, 590 (1875)]

In 1945, the Supreme Court settled this once
and for all in
Hooven &Allison Co. v. Evatt,
324 U.S. 652 indeed, saying that they wouldn t deal with it
again; henceforth, it must simply be given judicial notice. They
upheld the Downes v. Bidwell case, above, but now GAVE
THREE MEANINGS TO THE TERM UNITED STATES. (at 671-672) In the
instant paper, the primary meaning of "United States" will be that
designating territory over which the sovereignty of the corporate
United States extends as granted to this
federal agency
(i.e., creation) of the union states, under Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 17, and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, of their Constitution for the United
States
of (i.e., belonging
to or originating from) America. The other two meanings designated
are a nation among the family of nations, as at the UN, and the
collective name of the states united by and under the Constitution
(in this case,
not including the
District of Columbia, etc.). In other words, "the [s]tates united,"
as it was worded in People v. De Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337
(1870). Especially the last of these three, is often referred to as
the United States
of America.

The three definitions of "United States"
identified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven also implies that
there can be at least three types of "citizens of the United
States", where each type relies on a different context or definition
for the word "United States". Hence, the convention on this
website is to distinguish the three types of citizens using the
following terminology:

"It may be
merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position
analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of
nations."

International
law

United
States*"

"'These united
States," when traveling abroad, you come under the
jurisdiction of the President through his agents in the U.S.
State Department, where "U.S." refers to the sovereign
society. You are a "Citizen of the United States" like
someone is a Citizen of France, or England. We identify
this version of "United States" with a single asterisk after
its name: "United States*" throughout this article.

2

"It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty
of the United States extends, or"

Federal law
Federal forms

"United States**"

"The United States (the District of Columbia , possessions
and territories)". Here Congress has exclusive legislative
jurisdiction. In this sense, the term "United States" is a
singular noun. You are a person residing in the District of
Columbia, one of its Territories or Federal areas
(enclaves). Hence, even a person living in the one of the
sovereign States could still be a member of the Federal area
and therefore a "citizen of the United States." This is the
definition used in most "Acts of Congress" and federal
statutes. We identify this version of "United States" with
two asterisks after its name: "United States**" throughout
this article. This definition is also synonymous with the
"United States" corporation found in 28 U.S.C.
"3002(15)(A)".

3

"...as the collective name for the states which are united
by and under the Constitution."

Constitution of the United States

"United States***"

"The several States
which is the united
States of America." Referring to the
50 sovereign States,
which are united under the
Constitution of the
United States of America XE "DEFINITIONS:United
States of America" . The federal areas within these states
are not included in this definition because the
Congress
does not have exclusive legislative authority over
any of the 50
sovereign States within the Union of States. Rights
are retained by the
States
in the 9th and 10th Amendments, and you are a "Citizen
of these united States." This is the definition used
in the Constitution for the United States of America. We
identify this version of "United States" with a three
asterisks after its name: "United States***" throughout
this article.

The U.S. Supreme Court helped to clarify which of the three
definitions above is the one used in the U.S. Constitution, when it
held the following. Note they are implying the THIRD
definition above and not the other two:

"The earliest case is that of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2
Cranch, 445, 2 L. ed. 332", in which this court held that, under
that clause of the Constitution limiting the jurisdiction of the
courts of the United States to controversies between citizens of
different states, a citizen of the District of Columbia could
not maintain an action in the circuit court of the United
States. It was argued that the word 'state.' in that connection,
was used simply to denote a distinct political society. 'But,'
said the Chief Justice, 'as the act of Congress obviously used
the word 'state' in reference to that term as used in the
Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia
is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that
examination is a conviction that the members of the American
confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution
, . . . and excludes from the term the signification attached to
it by writers on the law of nations.' This case was followed in
Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L. ed. 825, and quite recently in
Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 , 41 L. ed. 1049, 17
Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. The same rule was
applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1
Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44, in which an attempt
was made to distinguish a territory from the District of
Columbia. But it was said that 'neither of them is a state in
the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.'
In Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181 , and in Miners'
Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney, 12 How. 1,
13 L. ed. 867 , it was held that under the judiciary act,
permitting writs of error to the supreme court of a state in
cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in
question, an act of a territorial legislature was not within the
contemplation of Congress."
[Downes v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901)
244 (1901)]

The Supreme Court further clarified that the Constitution implies
the third definition above, which is the United States*** when they
held the following. Notice that they say "not part of the
United States within the meaning of the Constitution" and that the
word "the" implies only ONE rather than multiple meanings:

"As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create
courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good
behavior, it necessarily follows that,
if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the
appointment of judges for limited time, it must act
independently of the Constitution upon territory
which is not part of the United States
within the meaning of the Constitution."
[O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516,
53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]

And finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has also
held that the Constitution does not and cannot determine or limit
the authority of Congress over federal territory and that the ONLY
portion of the Constitution that does in fact expressly refer to
federal territory and therefore the statutory "United States" is
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. Notice they ruled that Puerto
Rico is NOT part of the "United States" within the meaning of the
Constitution, just like they ruled in O'Donoghue above that
territory was no part of the "United States":

In passing upon the questions involved in this and kindred
cases, we ought not to overlook the fact that, while the Constitution
was intended to establish a permanent form of government for the
states which should elect to take advantage of its conditions,
and continue for an indefinite future, the vast possibilities of
that future could never have entered the minds of its framers.
The states had but recently emerged from a war with one of the
most powerful nations of Europe, were disheartened by the
failure of the confederacy, and were doubtful as to the
feasibility of a stronger union. Their territory was confined to
a narrow strip of land on the Atlantic coast from Canada to
Florida, with a somewhat indefinite claim to territory beyond
the Alleghenies, where their sovereignty was disputed by tribes
of hostile Indians supported, as was popularly believed, by the
British, who had never formally delivered possession
[182 U.S. 244, 285] under the treaty of
peace. The vast territory beyond the Mississippi, which formerly
had been claimed by France, since 1762 had belonged to Spain,
still a powerful nation and the owner of a great part of the
Western Hemisphere.
Under these
circumstances it is little wonder that the question of annexing
these territories was not made a subject of debate. The
difficulties of bringing about a union of the states were so
great, the objections to it seemed so formidable, that the whole
thought of the convention centered upon surmounting these
obstacles. The question of territories was dismissed with a
single clause, apparently applicable only to the territories
then existing, giving Congress the power to govern and dispose
of them.

Had the acquisition of other territories been contemplated as
a possibility, could it have been foreseen that, within little
more than one hundred years, we were destined to acquire, not
only the whole vast region between the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans, but the Russian possessions in America and distant
islands in the Pacific, it is incredible that no provision
should have been made for them, and the question whether the
Constitution should or should not extend to them have been
definitely settled. If it be once conceded
that we are at liberty to acquire foreign territory, a
presumption arises that our power with respect to such
territories is the same power which other nations have been
accustomed to exercise with respect to territories acquired by
them.If, in limiting the
power which Congress was to exercise within the United
States[***], it was also intended to limit it with regard to
such territories as the people of the United States[***] should
thereafter acquire, such limitations should have been expressed.
Instead of that, we find the Constitution speaking only to
states, except in the territorial clause, which is absolute in
its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon the power of
Congress in dealing with them. The states could only delegate to
Congress such powers as they themselves possessed, and as they
had no power to acquire new territory they had none to delegate
in that connection.The logical inference
from this is that if Congress had power to acquire new
territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the
constitutional provisions.
If, upon the other hand, we assume [182 U.S. 244,
286] that the territorial clause of the Constitution
was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the
United States then possessed, there is nothing in the
Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in dealing
with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other
provisions.

[. . .]

If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing
from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and
modes of thought, the administration of government and justice,
according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be
impossible; and the question at once arises whether large
concessions ought not to be made for a time, that ultimately our
own theories may be carried out, and the blessings of a free
government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline
to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid
such action.

We are therefore of opinion that
the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and
belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United
States[***] within the revenue clauses of the Constitution;
that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes
duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff
cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case.
[Downes
v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

Another important distinction needs to be made. Definition
1 above refers to the country "United States*", but this country is
not a
"nation", in the sense of international law. This very
important point was made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1794
in the case of
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793),
when it said:

This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to
it is a State; certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign.
The question to be determined is, whether this State, so
respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This
question, important in itself, will depend on others, more
important still; and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into
one, no less radical than this 'do the people of the United
States form a Nation?'

A cause so conspicuous and interesting, should be carefully
and accurately viewed from every possible point of sight. I
shall examine it; 1st. By the principles of general
jurisprudence. 2nd. By the laws and practice of particular
States and Kingdoms. From the law of nations little
or no illustration of this subject can be expected. By that law
the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are
considered as forming a society, not a NATION.
It has only been by a very few comprehensive minds, such as
those of Elizabeth and the Fourth Henry, that this last great
idea has been even contemplated. 3rdly. and chiefly, I shall
examine the important question before us, by the Constitution of
the United States, and the legitimate result of that valuable
instrument.
[Chisholm v. Georgia,
2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793)]

Black"s Law Dictionary further clarifies the
distinction between a "nation" and a "society" by clarifying the
differences between a
national
government and a
federal
government, and keep in mind that the American government is called
"federal government":

"NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. The government of a whole
nation, as distinguished from that of a local or territorial
division of the nation, and also as distinguished from that of a
league or confederation.

"A national government is a government of the people of a
single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed
the "social compact," and possessing complete and perfect
supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made
the lawful objects of civil government. A federal
government is distinguished from a national government by its
being the government of a community of independent and sovereign
states, united by compact." Piqua Branch Bank v.
Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 393."
[Black"s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, p. 1176]

"FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The system of government
administered in a state formed by the union or confederation of
several independent or quasi independent states; also the
composite state so formed.

In strict usage, there is a distinction between a
confederation and a federal government. The former term denotes
a league or permanent alliance between several states, each of
which is fully sovereign and independent, and each of which
retains its full dignity, organization, and sovereignty, though
yielding to the central authority a controlling power for a few
limited purposes, such as external and diplomatic relations. In
this case, the component states are the units, with respect to
the confederation, and the central government acts upon them,
not upon the individual citizens. In a federal government, on
the other hand, the allied states form a union,-not, indeed, to
such an extent as to destroy their separate organization or
deprive them of quasi sovereignty with respect to the
administration of their purely local concerns, but so that the
central power is erected into a true state or nation, possessing
sovereignty both external and internal,-while the administration
of national affairs is directed, and its effects felt, not by
the separate states deliberating as units, but by the people of
all. in their collective capacity, as citizens of the nation.
The distinction is expressed, by the German writers, by the use
of the two words "Staatenbund" and "Bundesstaut;" the former
denoting a league or confederation of states, and the latter a
federal government, or state formed by means of a league or
confederation."
[Black"s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, p. 740]

So the "United States*" the country is a
"society" and a "sovereignty" but not a "nation" under the law of
nations, by the Supreme Court"s own admission. Because the
Supreme Court has ruled on this matter,
it is now incumbent upon each of us to always remember it and
to apply it in all of our
dealings with the Federal Government. If not, we lose
our individual Sovereignty by default and the Federal Government
assumes jurisdiction over us. So, while a
sovereign Citizen will want to be the
third type of Citizen,
which is a "Citizen of the United States***" and on occasion
a "citizen of the United States*", he would never want to be the
second, which is a "citizen of the United States**". A human
being who is a "citizen" of the second is called a statutory "U.S.
citizen" under
8 U.S.C. §1401, and he is treated in law as occupying a place
not protected by the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten
amendments of the United States Constitution. Below is how the
U.S. Supreme Court, in a dissenting opinion, described this "other"
United States, which we call the "federal zone":

"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression
in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country
substantially two national governments; one to be maintained
under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other
to be maintained by Congress outside the independently of that
instrument, by exercising such powers [of absolutism] as other
nations of the earth are accustomed to.. I take leave to say
that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the
sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous
change in our system of government will result. We will,
in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty
guarded and protected by a written constitution into an
era of legislative absolutism.. It will be an evil day for
American liberty if the theory of a government outside the
supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional
jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than
to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the
principles of the Constitution."
[Downes v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

If you would like to learn more about the subject of citizenship,
the following memorandum of law on this website treats the subject
with as much detail as you could probably ever want to know, and is
completely consistent with the information in this article:

In January, 1997, Dan Meador
and Tim McCrory "tracked down the illusive "United States of
America" named principal in all current Federal civil and criminal
prosecution. The new entity is a coalition of Federal territories
and insular possessions, it is not "[s]tates of the [u]nion."
(Internet email-list communication, "Who are IRS & the USA?" of June
15, 2000, by Dan Meador.) They demonstrate the use
by the federal government, itself, of the term of art the
United States of America. If
proof were not so incontrovertible you can look up for yourself one
would dismiss this as a fantastical notion, or a meaningless slip.

Article I of the Articles of Confederation
(1777) used the phrase "United States of America." Sometime after
1909 the federal government began using this term, to refer to an agency of the "United
States." One reads on the Federal Reserve Note that it is
"legal tender for all debts, public and private, in the United
States of America." Given that the Federal Reserve Act was
enacted as a municipal law of the
District of Columbia (and, therefore, by the way,
perfectly constitutional), it isn t difficult to figure out that the
District of Columbia could be at least part of what is referred to
as the "U.S.A."

On December 7, 1925 Congress set forth 50
titles, "intended to embrace the laws of the United States " and yet
these titles were designated "the Code of the Laws of the United
States of America."
(Emphasis added. Today there are only 48 titles, since Title 34
Navy has been eliminated, by the enactment of Title 10 Armed
Forces, and Title 6 Surety Bonds was repealed, with the
enactment of Title 31 Money and Finance. But, you still will
always read "the 50 Titles.")

The U.S. Constitution, of course, only
delegates authority to the "United
States," not the "United States
of America."
The United States is an agency of the
U.S.A. not the other way around.The first sentenceof
Article I states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which" Article II,
Section 1 speaks of "the Government of the United States." And
Article III, Section 1 begins: "The judicial Power of the United
States, shall"

The distinctness of these two entities is
incontestably made evident in the 1934 edition of The Code of the
Laws of the United States of America, Title 18, §80.
(Criminal Code, §35, amended.)
Presenting false claims.

Whoever shall make or cause to be made or present or cause to
be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or
officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United
States, or any department thereof, or any corporation in which
the United States
of America
is a stockholder, any claim upon or against the
Government of the United States, or any department or officer
thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America
is a stockholder, knowing such claim to be false,
fictitious, or fraudulent; or whoever shall by any trick,
scheme, or device a [sic] material fact, or statements or
representations, or make or use or cause to be made or used any
false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate,
affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any
fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, in any matter
within the jurisdiction of any department or agency or the
United States or of any corporation in which the United States
of America
is a stockholder shall be fined not more than $10,000 or
(Emphasis added. A stockholder?!?!)

Or, also, 28 CFR, 0.96(b) Exchange of
prisoners:

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons and officers of the
Bureau of Prisons designated by him are authorized to receive
custody of offenders and to transfer offenders to and from the
United States
of AmericaUNDER TREATY as referred to in Public Law
95-144; to make arrangements with the States and to receive
offenders from the [federal] States for transfer to a foreign
country [such as Ohio] to act as an agent of the United States
to receive the delivery from a foreign government [say, Vermont]
of any person being transferred to the United States
under such a treaty

This makes unmistakable the fact that two independent and
discrete geographical jurisdictions, foreign to one another, AND UNDER TREATY WITH EACH
OTHER, are being referred to. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. §1001
historical notes, together with 6, unassailably prove that the United States of America
is a creation, an instrumentality, an agency of the United States,
and/or a political subdivision thereof. It could be the
District of Columbia and/or a compact of the insular possessions of
the U.S., subject to the territorial clause at 4:3:2 of the
Constitution. Indeed, I like Dan Meador s idea that it might better
be described as the Federal United States of
America
which distinguishes it from the Preamble U.S.A.

Words "or any corporation in which the
United States of America is a stockholder" in said
"80 [of the 1940 ed. of the USC] were omitted as unnecessary in
view of definition of "agency" in
6 of this title. (Emphasis added.)

Section 6 says:

The term "agency" includes any department, independent
establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or
bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United
States has a proprietary interest"

All of this recalls to mind the Declaration of Independence of
1776:

He [King George] has combined with others
to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and
unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of
pretended legislation . . .altering fundamentally the Forms of
our Government. . .

Unaware of this shattering state of affairs,
many people include "of America," in their speech and
writings, in an effort to avoid all ambiguity---as indeed the
federal government does itself, in an
extremely noteworthy and striking example. It involves the
wording of the two perjury jurats, found in Title 28 Judiciary
and Judicial Procedure
Section 1746:

(1) If executed without
(outside) the [federal] United States: "I declare (or certify,
verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of
America
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)" (Emphasis added.)

(2) If executed within
the [federal] United States, its territories, possessions, or
commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on (date). (Signature)" (Emphasis added.)

"If executed without the United States " doesn t mean in
Moscow; it means any place in the 50 union states that is not a
federal zone, like D.C., an airforce base, or Guam. It would
have been possible to include in (2) "under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the United States," leaving out of America but
that would have got people thinking about the difference between
the U.S. and the U.S. of A .and that
maybe they were swearing under the laws of a foreign
jurisdiction!

They are,
of course, but it is a particular kind of law; it is special,
private, corporate, contract law with the 27 non-positive law titles
of the 48, which are the corporate bylaws, having little or no
necessary legal force and effect on the general populationUNLESS there is some legal
adhesionment, like signing a 1040 Label Form. (The term label is on
the form, some say, because you are affixing your seal. )

The jurat on this form does not exactly follow
the wording of
28 U.S.C. §1746(2), above, as some people seem to think. The Form
1040 says "Under penaltiesof
perjury, I declare " The reason for this dissimilarity is because a
federal employee or official may be tried and penalized twice. The
second penalty is loss of benefits for life, if impeached and
convicted because of having taken an oath of office. Remember, an
oath establishes jurisdiction indeed, the word means oath spoken.
For example, even though you haven t filed a tax return for decades,
the government will presume that you still believe yourself to have
a duty to do so unless you have rebutted this presumption by a
cancellation of the oath you took on signing your first Form 1040
jurat see
26 U.S.C. §6013(g)(4) Termination of election (A) Revocation
by taxpayers.

By claiming to be a statutory "U.S. citizen"
per 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 8 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c ) for tax
purposes, way back when you were 14 and illegall submitted the SS-5
application for a Social Security card, you became, in the eyes of the
IRS, a federal "person", a de jure (by oath) non-compensated
federal statutory "employee" by. For after all, jurato creditur in judicio,
he who swears an oath is to be believed in judicial proceedings.

And you can now commit yourself to this jurat
on-line. That is, once you have declared yourself to be a taxpayer
under penalty of perjury on Form 8453-OL, and mailed it to the IRS.
(On-line signatures permitted after October, 2000.) Thereafter,
using the Declaration Control Number (DCN) they provide, all your
1040s or 1099s are considered to be signed under oath. And, for your
convenience, this authorizes access to you bank account or credit
card for direct withdrawal. How thoughtful! Thirty three million
DCNs were provided last year. They are aiming at 80% of all tax
returns to be filed electronically, by 2007.

I can't recall any criminal prosecution
involving federal income taxation where there was not a signed tax
form in evidence, or referred to albeit of many years previous. And,
the judge will say openly but mostly to deaf ears that if you don t
disavow (un-swear) that you are a United States person (26
USC §7701(a)(30) ) you can be found guilty of failure to file.

Unless the defendant
can establish that he is not a citizen of the [District]
United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to
determine his federal tax liability. [U.S. v. Slater, 82-2 USTC 9571. (Emphasis added.)]

As Templeton does
not dispute that she is a citizen of the [District] United
States, and because the Code imposes an income tax on
every individual who is a citizen or resident of the [District]
United States,
26 C.F.R. §1.1-(1)(a), it would clearly contradict the plain
meaning [see section 14, below, by that title] of the term to
conclude that Congress did not intend that Templeton be
considered a taxpayer as the term is used throughout the Code.
[Rachel Templeton v. IRS, 86-1363 on appeal from 85 c 457.
(Emphasis added.)]

For, every federal indentured servant, subject,
slave, individual, employee, and official has an undisputed duty to
file a tax return being a homo fiscalis, a vassal belonging
to the treasury being an alieni juris, one under the control
of, or subject to the authority of, another opposite to a freeman in
sui juris, one possessing all his natural, social, and civil
rights, not under anyone else s guardianship or control. In other
words, s/he is capax negotii, competent to transact his or
her legal affairs. Or, one could say, one who has rectus in curia,
right in court, one who can benefit from the law unlike the outlaw
or slave. That is, legally being able to act for him/herself namely,
having the legal capacity, ability, and power to manage his/her own
affairs, as opposed to someone having relinquished his/her power of
judicial action, by giving up his/her power of attorney, and
becoming, thereby, a ward of the court. That is, someone considered
of unsound mind and under the care of a guardian.

Truly unbelievable! One is reminded of a remark
by Judge Bork, to the effect that 90% of those in prison are there
voluntarily i.e., by consent and permission! (You notice that he was
not confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice!) Which brings to mind a
Supreme Court case, in 1794, where one reads that:

The only reason, I believe, that a free man is
bound by human law, is, that he binds himself. Chisholm v,
Georgia, 2, Dall 440, 455.

Before leaving discussion of the semi-statutory
U.S.A. I say semi because it was never enacted into actual law, just
treated as though it were a fait accompli, a done deal, and
never discussed. There is a great deal to be said about this
subject; however, I will keep it short. Interested parties must go
to Dan Meador s most recent writings for a more full treatment for
example "Agents of a Foreign Government: A Bizarre Saga," written
April 5, 2000.

I am going to skip over the very important
relationship of the IRS with its predecessor, the BIR (Bureau of
Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico), starting back in 1900. Here, as
briefly as possible, I am going to touch on two very recent
monumentally important events.

The first dates to January 24, 2000, where
United States Attorney, Betty H. Richardson, responded to a
complaint for impleader by the attorney John M. Ohman, for Cox Ohman
& Brandstetter, Chartered, "in the District Court of the Seventh
Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of
Bonneville Magistrates Court" (Case No. CV93-4117). The point is
that Ms. Richardson responded to the 4th
item of the complaint with the earth-shocking statement that and I
have a court copy in front of me: "4. Denies that the Internal
Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government[,]
but admits that the United
States
OF AMERICA would be a proper party to this action
."(Emphasis added.)I agree with Dan Meador that:
"The Internal Revenue Service operates as an agent of this
come-lately geographical and political alliance know[n] as the
United States of America,
Puerto Rico being a party to the compact" though there hasn t been
space enough here to properly substantiate that statement. This is
but a sketch.

In boxing they speak of the one, two punch.
Well, here is the second punch the coup de grace. Michael Bufkin
sent a FOIA request on December 18, 1998 to the Department of the
Treasury, "for documents that evidence the authority of the U.S.
Attorney General s Office to defend IRS agents in a civil or
criminal matter." This is a quote from the government s response, on
August 2, 1999: "A search was performed with the Office of Tax
Crimes (Criminal Investigation) and with the Assistant Chief Counsel
(Disclosure Litigation) and
we have no documents
responsive to your request." (Emphasis added.)

He then FOIAed the U.S. Department of Justice
(Criminal Division), on September 21, 1999, and received a reply on
Jan 11, 2000, stating that "we
did not locate any records responsive to your request "
(Emphasis added.) from the Chief FOIA/Privacy Act Unit Office of
Enforcement Operations Criminal Division.

This is staggering in its implications!
or, perhaps indications for it doesn t imply anything; it
clearly states in black and white: the United States Government has
no authority to defend in court any employee of the IRS for they are not employees
of the U.S. Government!!

So, there we have it. The latest cutting edge
news the IRS is not, in the strict governmental sense of the term,
an agency, though it is hired out by the government, like a
janitorial service. So there is not anything inconsistent with the
fact that they get checks from the Department of Treasury. Just as
the company that paints one of their buildings or repairs their
toilets. It means nothing, where the check comes from.

In this paper, I will often qualify
United States and State by placing in brackets before them one or
more of the following: territorial, federal, District, or corporate.
I realize that these words are not synonymous, but I often use the
first one that comes to mind except, sometimes, to make a slightly
different stress, in a particular context. I do this to point out
the distinctness of the particular use of U.S., in the given
quotation, from the common understanding of its meaning, as standing
for the whole nation of the 50 states, together with the federal
zone.

In case anyone has trouble with considering the
U.S. a corporation, s/he will find this case, decided in 1823, of
interest:

The United States is a government, and, consequently, a body
politic and corporate This great corporation was ordained and
established by the American people [United States v. Maurice, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15, 747, 2
Brock 96, Circuit Court, D. Virginia]

Also, in the Clearfield case, of 1943, the Supreme Court quotes
the very early Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall 55, where it was
stated that "[g]overnments are corporations."

The Corpus Juris Secundum 2 states:

When the United States enters into commercial business, it
abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other
corporation. (Emphasis added.)

But, more current and interesting is the cite from
28 U.S.C. §3002, which states that United States has several other
meanings, as well:

(15) ''United States'' means

(A) a Federal
corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entityofthe United

States; or

(C) an instrumentalityof the United States. (Emphasis
added.)

As for territory :

[It s] a part of the country separated from the rest and subject to a particular
jurisdiction. A portion of the country subject to and
belonging to the [District] United States
[Government] which is not within the boundary of any state or
the District of Columbia. (262
U.S. 122. Emphasis added.)

A territory is not a sovereignty. Such legislative powers as
it may possess are delegated powers which may be granted or
withheld at the will of Congress."
[Territory v. Alexander, 11 Ariz. 172, 89 P. 514 (1907)]

I have used the term person a number of
times, and I believe it deserves some special attention. It derives
from the Latin persona, an actor s mask, used in Greek and Roman
times for two purposes to identify the stage character for one actor
often played more than one role, so he would simply switch masks and
to project his voice by means of a megaphone-shaped mouth per sona,
by sound. Hence, our word personality, that about ourselves which we
project to others. In some, more than others, a presentation that
indeed masks our true character or nature. In the Middle Ages it
came to be used as synonymous with homo, man or individual. This was
not the case in ancient (and modern) Roman law. As one legal
historian put it:

jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights
of persons, but law of
status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or
individual person, but the status or condition with which he
is invested.
[34 Austins Jur., 363. Emphasis added.]

In the 15th century, "person came to
be used in legal terminology for one (as a human being, a
partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by the law as
the subject of rights and duties."(Merriam-Webster s
New Book of Word Histories, 1991. Emphasis added.) Note here
that it is only the human being in his person, as a subject of
rights and duties. As Ortolan says, in his History of the Roman
Law:

The word person(persona) does not in the
language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the
physical man. In the first, it is
every being considered as capable of having or owing rights, of
being the active or passive subject of rights.

We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein.
In fact, law by its power of abstraction
creates persons
.because it makes of them beings capable of having or owing
rights .

We shall therefore have to discriminate between, and to
study, two classes of person: physical or natural persons,
for which we find no distinctive denomination in Roman
jurisprudence ; that is to say, the man-person; and abstract
persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except
in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions
or creations.

In another sense, very frequently employed, the word person
designates each character man is called upon to play on the
judicial stage; that is to say, each quality which gives him
certain rights or
certain obligations for instance, the person of father;
of son as subject to his father; of husband or guardian. In this
sense the same man can have several personae at the same time.
(Emphasis added.)

The Internal Revenue Code is Roman or civil law, together with
its sibling, maritime or admiralty law. Thus, as I discuss
below, the Supreme Court clearly states that all income taxes are on
corporations, as set forth in the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, not on people.
That is why all 48 titles always speak of persons,
never people, human beings,
or men or women; a fiction can only deal with a fiction.

This was made clear even before the Constitution, in TheFederalist Papers, No. 15:

Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States
have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and
money; but they have
no authority
to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of
America. (Emphasis added.)

the meaning of income as used in the Corporation Excise Tax
Law of 1909 is not to
be distinguished from the meaning of the same word as
used in the Income Tax Law of 1913 and the Revenue Act of 1916. [Merchants
Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka
255 US 509. (Emphasis added.) ]

However, as pointed out by Kenneth Weiland, it is of interest to
note, also, a Federal Claims Court case, Maryland Casualty Co. v.
U.S.:

By the act of August 5, 1909, a special excise tax was
imposed upon the privilege of carrying on business by
corporations. It was in reality a license to carry on
business
.The Income Tax Act of October 3, 1913, should be considered as
a statutory construction
of the act of August 5, 1909, in so far as it related to the
basis of taxation. (December Term, 1916-17 [52 C.
Cls.] Emphasis added. This will take on further meaning toward
the end of this paper.)

Be it noted that in the California Penal Code "person" is clearly
distinguished from "Citizen". Penal Code 228 states:

"Any
citizen of this state who shall fight a duel " While at 232
it states: "Any person
of this state who fights a duel "
[Emphasis added.]

The term of art individual is also
frequently employed in the codes. Which is even more sneaky, because
most people believe this word to be, for all intents and purposes,
synonymous with a human being what the law refers to as a natural
person. Roman law hardly referred to such a physical being, except
the rare usage of
singularis persona which, however, still employs persona,
thereby preserving a juridical nexus, inapplicable to a sentient man
(homo). An abstract, fictitious person is needed. Recall
Judge Bork, on page 11, above, saying that 90% of those in prison
were there because they consented to the process? You consent when
you agree to be subject to a statute dealing with persons which we
have seen to be fictional corporate constructs or entities. The code
any of the 48 titles only applies to a human being at the point s/he
agrees to take on the character, status, persona of an artificial
juristic persona. Always remember that when the code says " any
person," it means "any person
in the jurisdiction of this
code." One
obligates oneself to the civil code by an act of
assumpsit i.e., volunteering to be that person. (Assumpsit: "A
promise or engagement by which one person assumes or undertakes to
do some act or pay something to another."
Black s Law Dictionary, 6th edition. Recall the
Chisholm case, above.) You will
never
see in any code, State or federal, the word man or woman or people
at least I don t recall having done so only the juristic, statutory
person.

People are understandably confused about on
what I believe to be the correct signification of a particular class
of persons, namely, a natural person. It is almost always
used loosely to refer to the physical, sentient human being. Indeed,
in statutory law this is the term of choice for a living man
but always in a qualified
sense. At
26 C.F.R. §1.6049-4(f) Definitions we read:

The term natural person means any individual, but
shall not include a partnership (whether or not composed
entirely of individuals), a trust, or an estate. (Emphasis
added.)

Notice carefully how they see it as both possible and necessary
to qualify individual. If this term stood for a living man, it would
be pointless and ridiculous to say that it could not be a trust or
an estate! They wouldn t say that a man shall not include an estate.

So then, we see that person, natural person,
and individual are all fictitious legal creations. And, if you
acquiesce to being any of them, in a legal setting, you thereby
agree that the code addresses and applies to you.

This is why some have an aversion to referring
to their appearance in court as being in propria persona
which some do to avoid pleading pro se, for oneself, when
appearing without an attorney. They don t want to
represent
themselves, but be
themselves. And, since in propria persona means in one s own
proper person, it would seem to overcome this objection. Be this as
it may and I am aware of many arguments pro and con the court still
refers to your appearance as being pro se. Personally, if I
found myself in that situation, I would appear in rerum natura,
in the realm of actuality; in existence, (Black s Law Dictionary,
6th edition) the opposite of being a fictitious person.

We should look, too, at the very first term in
the general definition chapter for
the entire
IRC:
Section 7701(a)(1) and well they should begin there, for all
statutory law rests on the foundation of this juristic fabrication.

Person. The term person shall be construed to mean and
include an individual,
a trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or
corporation.

Therefore, since we now know that, in law, person can not be
anything but a fictitious juridical creation, it follows ineluctably
that if individual is said to mean the exact same thing, then it
must also refer to the same type of unnatural and artificial entity
as person.

This is pretty well nailed down by a couple of cites from the
CFR. At
5 C.F.R. §582.101(4) we read:

Persons may include an
individual,
partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, private
organization or other legal
entity, and includes the plural of that term; person
may include any of the entities that may issue
legal process as
set forth in (Emphasis added.)

Person means an
individual, partnership, association, corporation,
estate, trust, or other legal entity,
and whenever applicable, a State or a political subdivision, or
agency of a State. (Emphasis added.)

Here it is in the regulations, an individual is
a legal entity, not a (wo)man, a sentient human being.

The term person as usedin this chapter
includes [is restricted to] an officer or employee of a
corporation [such as the U.S. or some company incorporated in
the federal zone], or a member or employee of a partnership, who
as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform
the act in respect to which the violation occurs.

For starters,
Section 7203 is a penalty section and
makes no attempt to
establish any liability. Plus, the implementing regulations
are in Title 27 BATF meaning that it is exclusively for their use,
with excise taxes! It has nothing to do with the IRS. Leaving all
that aside, do you believe that you could be charged as being the
person described
above? Do you work for the federal government or a domestic (U.S.,
not State) corporation?

It is exceedingly noteworthy that in the several thousand pages
of the Internal Revenue Code reference is only made to "the 50
States," on two occasions at which times it is legally required
to do so. The first,
4612(a)(4)(A), reads:

In general. The term 'United States' means the 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands. (Emphasis added.)

Which indicates that the code lawyers know how to be lucid when
they wish to also, note that they use means rather than includes.

(5) State. The term State means--
(A) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands

They share, however, the clear reference to the 50 States, and
they both use means, rather than includes, or other gobbledygook,
such as found in the IRC s general definition of State at
7701 (a)(10), which I analyze in section 7.

I found there are at least three other occasions, however, when
they use the phrase several States, in referring to the union
states
5272(b),
5362, and
7462.

However, some people mistakenly believe that several States
always
means the 50 States partly because the Declaration of Independence
uses the phrase several times.

Not so! More than one constitutes several, and
the government usually,
though not always, uses the word to lead you to infer their meaning
as being the union states. (The phrase several States is not a term
of art and, therefore, can be used loosely, not being defined in the
code.) The fact, however, is that the federal government almost
always
is making reference to
the federal States, when it employs the phrase several
states. This can be demonstrated by reference to many documents,
such as the Congressional Quarterly. But one of the best sources is
the Hawaii Omnibus Act, a compilation of all the alterations to the
codes and Statutes at Large made necessary by Hawaii s admission to
the union. For example:

Sec. 10. Section 2 of the Act of September 2, 1937 (50 Stat.
917), as amended, is further amended by striking out the words ;
and the term "State" shall be construed to mean and include the
several States
and the Territory of Hawaii . (Emphasis added.)

As established above, State, here, cannot possibly make reference
to the union states, for it included the Territory of Hawaii.
Therefore, several States, here,
must
refer to the federal States.

Like reasoning applies to another section from this Act:

Sec. 3. Section 113 of the Soil Bank Act, as amended, is
amended to read as follows: This subtitle B shall apply to the several States
and, if the Secretary determines it to be in the national
interest, to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands; and as used in this subtitle B, the term State includes
[only see analysis of the term includes below] Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands. (Emphasis added.)

It is obvious that Puerto Rico cannot be a
State, the same as Oklahoma; therefore, once again, it must be a
different species of State a federal State.

Title 31, Money and Finance, no longer contains
Part 51, Financial Assistance to local governments, and Part 52,
Antirecession, Fiscal Assistance to State, Territorial and Local
governments. I located a different law library this morning that had
some old CFRs, and went there in order to verify the quotes below in
a July 1, 1992 edition. I will include a couple of items that are
not directly relevant, but they help flesh out the picture of the
two different governments
involved.?

Subpart AGeneral Information.

51.2 Definitions. (c) Department means the
Department of the Treasury.

52.2 Definitions. (c) Department means the
Department of the Treasury.

* * *

51.2(i) Governor means the Governor of any of the 50
State
governments or the
Mayor of the District of Columbia.

52.2(f) Governor means the Governor or any of the 50 states and
the chief executive officer of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands of the United States.

* * *

51.2(o) Secretary means the Secretary of the Treasury.

52.2(n) Secretary means the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
the Treasury.

* * *

51.2(q) State government means the government of any
of 50 State
governments or the District of Columbia.

52.2(o) State government means government of any of
the 50 states.

* * *

51.2(r) Unit of local government .The District of
Columbia, in addition to being treated as the sole unit of local
government within its geographic area is considered a [federal]
State.

52.2(i) Local government .The term local government
includes the District of Columbia. (Text emphasis added.)

By way of brief comment, on a dollar bill you will see a green
seal inscribed "THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1789;" no reference
is made to the "U.S. Department of the Treasury."But then
there are a maze of treasuries to be found in the laws of the U.S.
Of course, in the Constitution we only find "the Treasury of the
United States." This was drastically changed by the Independent
Treasury Act of 1921, which I won t go into. One can get some idea
of the present hodge-podge by looking at the Bretton Woods
Agreements Act, as seen in P.L. 94-564, p.19:

Section 9 of the bill would also delete the reference in
Section 14(c) of the Gold Reserve Act to the
Treasurer of the United
States" and substitute therefor the "United
States Treasury". This substitution reflects
Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950 (31
U.S.C. "1001, note) and a reorganization within the Fiscal
Service of the Treasury
Department, effective February 1, 1974. All accounts of
the "Treasurer of the United States", including accounts
relating to gold held against outstanding gold certificates, now
are accounts of the "United States Treasury". The
Department of the Treasury proposes to amend or repeal
other statutes, as and when appropriate, to make similar
substitutions in the law. (Emphasis added.)

And there are more treasuries not mentioned
here.

And the difference between State and state must
certainly have caught your attention which distinction I use
throughout this paper.

And, lastly, on these quotes from Title 13, it
is put forth that the District of Columbia is to be "considered
a State." Well, it so happens that the Supreme Court dealt
thoroughly with this matter in
O Donoghue v. United States,
289 U.S. 516 (1933). It stated four conclusions dealing
with the relationship between the union states and the District of
Columbia and the territories. Three of them spoke of certain regards
in which these latter were not states, but one enunciated a sense in
which they
could be termed
states : "3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is
used in treaties with foreign powers, with respect to the ownership,
disposition, and inheritance of property, 4 " I thank
Jerry Brown, Ed. D., for this research, and his observation that
this was why the territories were termed states in the treaty with
Spain. He terms them inchoate states. Black s Law Dictionary,
6th
edition, defines inchoate as "imperfect; partial; unfinished; begun,
but not completed " (It defines 6 inchoate items, but not a state.
So perhaps this is Jerry s felicitous phrase. I like it.)
Incidentally, the U.S. most certainly has tax treaties with the
union states which are admitted to be foreign countries, as I will
cite later just as it does with a couple of dozen other countries.

To this point I have quoted the codes and
statutes. Next, I will call attention to a federal court s rather
recent landmark decision, which very few know about. Then finally,
we will see what a Congresswoman and the Congressional Research
Service have to say which would seem to cover the matter from about
all angles.

The United States District Court for the Virgin
Islands decided a very important case, in 1996. It was a petition
for redetermination of tax liability, Docket number 96-146, filed
July 12, 1996, cited as: Burnett v. Commissioner [of Internal
Revenue], KTC 1996-292 (D.V.I. 1996). The court stated that Subtitle A taxes apply only
to Washington, D.C. and the territories!!. They cited
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9), the general definition of United States, and
7701(a)(10), the definition of State which, as can be seen, they
interpreted as I have in this paper!

Extremely important, also, is a letter
that Congresswoman Barbara B. Kennelly, from Connecticut, sent on
January 24, 1996. I have a fax copy of the original, and will quote
it, in pertinent part.

In your letter you asked if Section 3 (a) of H.R. 97 [which
she introduced] defining the word state, and
26 U.S. Code 3121 (e) are the same. I have checked with
Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service about
the definition. According to these legal experts, the
definitions are not the same. The term state in
26 U.S. Code 3121 (e) specifically includes
only the named
territories and possessions of the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa."
(Emphasis added.)

The Congresswoman is referring to 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(e)-1 State,
United States, and citizen [revised, below, April 1, 1999] where
it states that:

(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term
``State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and
Hawaii before their admission
as States, and (when used with respect to services
performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.

(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term
``United States'', when used in a geographical sense, means the several states
(including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission
as States), the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used
in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services
performed after 1960, the term ``United States'' also includes
Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical
sense. The term citizen of the United
States
includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the
Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961,
a citizen of Guam or American Samoa. (Emphasis added.)

How could it possibly be more clear that here, at least, the
several states refers to
the federal States only?! A legal maxim expresses the
obvious: verbis standum ubi nulla ambiguitas, one must abide
by the words when there is no ambiguity.

For the purposes of
this section [only!], the term State means [not
bothering to attempt dissimulation by using includes ] the
several States
and
Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and the District of Columbia. (Emphasis added.)

As this section must, by the nature of its subject matter, make
reference to the 50 states, as well as the federal zone, it doesn t
hesitate to use words that make its meaning unambiguous. Of course,
it is
still shying away
from the with one exception, at
26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(5) unique forthrightness of
26 U.S.C. §4612(a)(4):

United States. (A) In general. The term United States
means
[not includes ] the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States
[Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands], the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands. (Emphasis added.)

In
Title 4, §112(b), above, Congress needed to make reference to
the 50 states, so it puts and after several States,
instead of a comma,
as it would do otherwise. In the government s usual usage, items
following the comma are
examples
of what precedes it, not items in addition to it, as
you are fostered into believing. For example, " General Motors cars,
Buick, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac." General Motors
is not one of the list; it
incorporates
the ensuing listed items.

This is a stratagem used when defining the federal U.S.
by example, as in
26 C.F.R. §1.911-2(g) United States:

The term United States when used in a geographical sense
includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United
States. It includes the States, [comma meaning, which are
comprised of ] the District of Columbia, the possessions and
territories of the United States (Emphasis added.)

There is, then, one thing always to keep in mind when reading the
code. With a few exceptions like those mentioned above, it never
does, it never needs to, nor can it everrefer to the
union states and the population at large. It is private
contractlaw i.e., when you sign something mentioned in the code, like
a Form W-4, it then, and thereby, takes on the force and
effect of law. Without such adhesionment, it has, except for the 17
areas clearly spelled out in 1:8 of the Constitution, as much
relevance to a state Citizen's life as the rules at Sears, if one doesn t
work there.

The term citizen
of the United States includes a citizen of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and,
effective January
1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
(Emphasis added.)

The definition is only
for Chapter 21 Federal Insurance Contributions Act, of
Subtitle C Employment Taxes and Collection of Income Tax,
where
Section 3121, Definitions, states at (b) Employment:

For purposes of this chapter, the term employment means any
service, of whatever nature, performed (B) outside the United
States [in Minnesota or New Hampshire] by a citizen
or resident
OF THE UNITED STATES
as an employee for an American employer
(as defined in subsection (h)) (Emphasis added.)

a. American employer. For purposes of this chapter,
the term American Employer means an employer which is

1. the United
States or any instrumentality thereof [which includes
States and Municipalities, but not Counties see
26 C.F.R. §301.6331-1(a)(4)],

(2) an individual who is a resident of the [District] United
States

Consequently, it is of crucial import to
determine exactly what the meaning of the term "United States", and a
"citizen of the United States" is, for the above chapter 21. For two
conditions must obtain before one can be liable for employment tax:

1) one must be a citizen or resident of the United States and

2) one must
be an employee of an American employer, which is to say, for the
most part, a federal, State, or Municipal government.

One readily knows, of course, whether 2),
above, applies. If you work for Macy's, you are home free, in that
department. And, from the unassailable investigation of the
Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service, as seen
in Congresswoman Kennelly s letter, above, we know that for the
purposes of chapter 21, Employment Taxes,
exactly what is being termed the 'United States' and a citizen of the
United States. So, unless you perjure yourself by claiming that you
are a U.S. citizen (i.e., for tax purposes), then this condition
doesn t obtain.
Both
situations, above, must exist or you are not subject to employment
tax. If both of these conditions are not present, then
26 U.S.C. §3402(p) "Voluntary
withholding agreements"(underline added) comes into play, and you are only part of the
game IF
you and your boss voluntarily agree to do so. Read it!! The ignoring
of this crystal clear section by workers, and the flouting of it by
the government, is one of the great mysteries and tragedies, on the
one hand, and one of the most vile and despicable agendas on the
part of the IRS, on the other.

At least one researcher has a problem with an
aspect of this, however, for he says that this chapter only gives a
geographical definition, and, in his opinion, " citizen connotes a
political sense."

Without going into it too deeply, just let me
quote the last paragraph of
26 U.S.C. §3121(e) State, United States, and citizen:

An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered,
forpurposes of this
section,
as a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)

Now I don t see any distinctions here between a
political citizen and a geographical citizen. Congress is simply
stating, for tax purposes in, a given context, who they considered
to be a citizen. the fact is that
THERE IS NO SINGLE STATUTORY 'UNITED STATES.' There are
numerous definitions of that term in the 48 codes, and certainly in
Title 26. I give a number in this paper. As an extreme example take
927(d), which says: "For the purposes of this subpart [of only 6
sections] (3) United States defined. The term 'United States'
includes [only see section 18] the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." On
the other hand, in Section 4612(a)(4), above, you have every
conceivable place included with dozens of shades in between.

The fallback or default definition for the
whole IRC is
7701(9), which speaks of the federal States and the District of
Columbia. In other words D.C., the territories, and enclaves, such
as military bases. Though I know of one researcher who would exclude
the territories, for chapter 21, and proposes that there citizen of
the United States means citizens of the District of Columbia, the
enclaves, and citizens of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Sorry,
but this flies in the face of the Kennelly letter. Questioning the
Congressional Research Service just isn t done at least I have never
heard of it. They, and the GAO, are as impartial and unbiased as it
is possible to get in the federal government. Neither has an ax to
grind. It s actually really heartening.

There is another tack, on coming correctly to understand what the
codes mean by "State." In the IRC, chapter 79 definitions
applies to the entire title, unless specified otherwise in a given
chapter or section. At
Section 7701(a)(9) we read:

United States. The term United States when used in a
geographical sense includes only the States and the District of
Columbia.

OK, but what
states? The next subsection,
7701(a)(10), supposedly is intended to answer this:

State. The term State shall be construed to include
the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary
to carry out the provisions of this title.

Before analyzing this definition, it is very instructive to trace
its development. It all began on June 30, 1864, when Congress
enacted its first formulation.

The word State, when used in this Title, shall be construed
to include the Territories and the District of Columbia, where
such construction is necessary to carry out its provisions.
(Title 35, Internal Revenue, Chapter 1, page 601, Revised
Statutes of the United States, 43rd Congress, 1st
Session, 1873-1874.)

When Alaska was admitted into the union, in 1959,
IRC 7701(a)(10) was amended by striking out "Territories" and
substituting "Territory of Hawaii."

Then, when Hawaii was admitted, we read in the Hawaii Omnibus
Act, 2nd Session, Volume 74, 1960, at Section 18:

(j)
Section 7701(a)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(relating to [the] definition of State ) is amended by striking
out the Territory of Hawaii and .

So, after the only two incorporated federal Territories/States
left the fold, only the District of Columbia remains as an example
which presents a problem. For, the Supreme Court ruled in
Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellsey,
6 U.S. 445, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed 332, that within the meaning of
the Constitution, the
District of Columbia is not a "state." Therefore, we know that we are dealing
with a different animal here. And, as the 50 states are
not mentioned, they cannot be referred to. Inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius to include the one is to exclude the other, is
an accepted maxim of law (if that's not a pleonasm).

It is really quite simple. Look at the IRC after Alaska had been
admitted as a union state, in January, 1959. It then reads, at
22(a) of the Omnibus Acts of the 86th Congress 1st
Session, Volume 73, 1959:

and sections
3121(e)(1) [see the Kennelly letter, above],
3306(j),
4221(d)(4), and
4233(b) of such code (each
relating to a special definition of State ) are
amended by
striking out Alaska.
(Parentheses in original. Emphasis added.)

This was done again, when Hawaii joined the union, in August, as
we read, above.

Of course, the definition of United States, at
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9), must also be changed, and is, in the
preceding subsection, (i), where "the Territory of Hawaii" is struck
out. For it no longer belongs to
the U.S. It is now not a federal State, but a free union
state. I would truly like to hear how anyone can gloss this over!
But keep reading; it gets better.

The above Act supplies a great number of amendments similar to
the following:

Sec. 14. (a)(1) Subsection (a) of section 103 of the National
Defense Education Act of 1958, relating to [the] definition of State,
is amended by
striking out Hawaii, each time it appears therein.
(Emphasis added.)

In other words, when Alaska and Hawaii become
the 49th and 50th states of the union, they immediately had to be
dropped from the various definitions of State, throughout the 48
titles and the statutes!This means that ipso jure,
by the law itself, the
Internal Revenue Code does not apply to Alaska and Hawaii!!! and,
therefore, pari ratione, by like reasoning, not the other 48
union states, as well. For, to quote one more legal
maxim, res accedent lumina rebus, one thing sheds light on
others.

So, then, the above "States
other than Alaska and Hawaii" are the federal territorial StatesPuerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianas,
District of Columbia, etc. they vary from section to section in the
various codes and statutes, as the particular application requires,
but they are all, in a loose sense of the word, territories (not
incorporated Territories, as were Alaska and Hawaii) in the federal
zone.

Due to the apodictic, incontrovertible nature
of the above observation, the following placita juris, rules
of law, come to mind:

Secundum normam legis, cadit qustio!According to the rule of law, there is no room for further
argument!

In determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first
at its language. If
the language is unambiguous, it is to be regarded as conclusive
unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intent to the
contrary.
[Dickinson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103,
hearing denied, 461 U.S. 911. (Emphasis added.) ]

Conclusive though the above is, there nevertheless remains much
of interest and great importance to say on the subject.

State shall mean a State of the [District] United States; the
United States of
America; a territory or possession of the United
States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. (Emphasis added.)

Congress,
in defining the United
States of America as a State, reaffirms what we saw above it
is a geographical entity, as well as a government or political
compact distinct from and, therefore, foreign to the
constitutionally created United States. And it is listed together
with, and therefore distinct from, the federal States, territories
or possessions. Verily, this is wondrous strange! It s almost
spooky, as it is so far removed from any rational explanation.

I particularly like the definition in the first
version of "The Code of the Laws of the United States
of America," of
June 30, 1926. (Emphasis added.) In Section 2 it states:

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United
States, at home or abroad [in the union states], of the District
of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular
possession
of the United
States

How clear can it get? It says "each State of
[belonging to] the United States."

Also, I recently heard of a new unearthing by the dauntless South
Carolina attorney, Larry Becraft, to the effect that:

The first FULL and complete definition of the word "state"
in a federal statute appears in an act to tax booze and tobacco,
15 Stat. 125, ch.186 (July 20, 1868). Section 104 of this act,
15 Stat. at 166, contained definitions for certain words
appearing in the act and here you will find the following:

...and the word State to
mean and
include a Territory and District of Columbia... (Emphasis
added.)

At that early date, the government did not dissimulate so well.
Here, it is simply tells it like it is. How could one
possibly fit a union
state into that definition?!

[T]he term State
means any State, Territory, or possession
of
[ belonging to surely, not Florida] the United States, and the
Canal Zone." (Emphasis added.)

Note that the Canal Zone is not a federal
State, Territory, or possession of the U.S., but is still being
classified as a State! But, then, you must always look at the
title, chapter, section, subsection, or, sometimes even sentence, to
determine the specific intent. Again,
there is no ONE statutory United States.

This is incontestable from the dozens and
dozens of definitions of the United States in the statutes and
codes. And yet one is usually thought weird to contest the
underlying theme of the whole IRC namely, that there is only one
United States the whole nation. This is fatuous, of course, when you
really think about it which almost no one does. Not just because of
the Hooven case, above, but because of the numbing number of
variations on the definition of the United States in the IRC. Some
say over 200, which is perhaps too many, but
certainly more than one.

In this title (12), Banks and Banking, they
always seem to use the universally recognized restrictive word
means, rather than the IRC s term of choice, includes, that has
beguiled, deceived, deluded, hoodwinked, misdirected, and, most of
all victimized, basically, the whole country. Such as in 215b(2)
Definitions:

State means the several States and Territories,
[comma!] the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
and the District of Columbia. (Emphasis added.)

Here, of course, the confusion is limited to the correct
interpretation of the phrase the several States, which I have dealt
with above.

Title 28, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, also contributes
to the correct understanding of State and United States. Section 5,
United States defined says:

The term United States, as used in this title
in a territorial sense,
includes all places and waters, continental and insular,
subject to the [complete] jurisdiction of the United States,
except the Canal Zone. (Emphasis added.)

This, of course, excludes the union states. As does Section 7,
Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States
defined, where none of the eight jurisdictions mentioned venture
beyond the federal zone, into the 50 states. Obviously! If they did,
then the designated area would be, eo ipso, in the federal zone and
not in the states a non sequitur.

As used in this subdivision the term United States means the
United States [oh, really!!] and any place subject to the
jurisdiction thereof; [p]rovided, however, [t]hat the foregoing
shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of the
President,
which is hereby
conferred,
to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not
inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any and
all of the terms used in this subdivision." (Emphasis added.)

Unquestionably unconstitutional! Even if
reference is being made only to domestic i.e., federal zone matters,
over which the U.S. has jurisdiction which, of course, must be the
case, despite all attempts to imply otherwise. The legislature
cannot delegate legislative power to the executive.

This has not been contested yet, as was the
President s authority in
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan,
293 U.S. 388 (1935). It was found there that "authorizing the
President to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes" of the Act (407) constituted
unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to him, and that
the regulations for this were "without constitutional authority"
(433). Similar cases could be cited.

But then, since the commissions for newly
appointed Federal judges are no longer filed with the Secretary of
State, but with the Attorney General, under the seal of that
executive office,
the judiciary is also
under the control of the President. Which fact is further
confirmed by:

1. All process of
this Court issues in the name of the President of the United
States. (Emphasis added in this sentence.)

So much for separation of powers!!

Please excuse that brief interruption. I will now add the coup de
grace, in our investigation of the meaning of the term state, in the
IRC and all other codes. It is found in
26 U.S.C. §7621Internal revenue districts:

(b) Boundaries. [T]he President may subdivide any State
or the District of Columbia, or unite into one district two
or more States." (Emphasis added.)

This cannot
conceivably
refer to union states, for it would contravene the Constitution
(4:3:1):

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
but no new State shall be formed or erected within the
Jurisdiction of any other State;
nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States,
or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of
the States concerned as well as of the Congress. (Emphasis
added.)

Another observation throws more light on this
matter. The above wording was promulgated 2/1/77. It should have
been changed in the Hawaii Omnibus Act, right after Hawaii was
admitted to the union, in 1959 as was this section, in the Alaska
Omnibus Act, after Alaska was made a state of the union, earlier in
the year. I guess that they just held off as long as possible. For,
before that, in the IRC revision of 1/3/59, the subsection read:

Boundaries. [T]he President may subdivide any State,
Territory, or
the District of Columbia, or may unite into one District two or
more States or a
Territory and one or more States. (Emphasis added.)

At that time, the United States had one
remaining incorporated
Territory. Ever afterwards, just unincorporated
territories,
such as Guam or the Virgin Islands.

Because of its importance, I will also mention
that 7621 is not listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities, in the
Index volume of the C.F.R. for Title 26. This indicates that it does
not can not have general applicability to the union states and the
population at large. Of course not, how could it?!

Without going into detail, I will simply say
that the President delegated authority to the Secretary of Treasury
to prescribe internal revenue districts (Executive Order No.10289,
9/17/51). The Secretary then re-delegated it to the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. This delegated authority is related to the
Anti-Smuggling Act and customs duties, so it is not surprising that
the accompanying regulations are found in the C.F.R. for Title 19
Customs Duties. United States Customs Service offices are
legitimately located in the union states, but the only authorized
internal revenue districts were located in Puerto Rico, the Canal
Zone, and other insular possessions. The Commissioner of
Internal Revenue has delegated authority strictly limited by TDO
150-01 and 150-42, which have nothing to do with any area within the
50 states!

So, it would seem that, legally, there cannot
be internal revenue districts in the 50 states, and, yet, we know
that there are said to be such so-called districts.

There is a phrase in TDO 150-01 [now repealed],
which is interesting though it doesn t solve the problem:

6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions..

The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise
invested in him, provide for the administration of United States
internal revenue laws in the United States territories and
insular possessions
and other authorized areas of the world. (Emphasis
added.)

The union states qualify, of course, as "other authorized areas
of the world." But that still doesn t get around the
unconstitutionality of applying 7621 to union states.

Under the authority given to the President
to establish and alter
Internal Revenue Districts by section 7621 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and vested in me as
Secretary of Treasury by Executive Order 10574 the following
Internal Revenue Districts continue as they existed prior to
this order, with the changes noted below [and there follow
dozens of areas so designated.] (Emphasis added.)

All of which are
flagrantly unconstitutional. Indeed, this is one of the most blatant
and brazen misapplications of the code that I recall. And it
is flaunted in our faces, daring us to do something about it.

(a) General rule. The Secretary shall, to the extent
he deems it practicable, cause officers or employees of the
Treasury Department to proceed,
from time to time, through each internal revenue district
and inquire after and concerning all persons therein who
may be liable to
pay any internal revenue tax, and all persons owning or having
the care and management of any objects with respect to which any
tax is imposed. (Emphasis added.)

Unlike
7621, this section has implementing regulations as eight parts,
however, of Title 27
(BATF).
So, there is legitimate canvassing of internal revenue districts. It
is just that it is only
for such as Subtitle E of the IRC, dealing with tobacco, alcohol,
and firearms. And only in the insular possessions of the U.S.

Allow me to remind you that the Internal
Revenue Code is used by both the IRS and the BATF. The IRS has no
proprietary hold on it. For example, it has absolutely nothing to do
with, and never makes reference to, Subtitle E Alcohol, Tobacco,
and other Excise Taxes. And Subtitle F Procedure and
Administration, contains
all
enforcement sections in the IRC, and these, without exception, are
implemented
exclusively
by the BATF, and have to do only with excise taxes. There are a few
sections therein that the IRS avails itself of, but
they do not involve any
aspect of enforcement.

Part 70 of C.F.R. 27 is also where are found the
regulations enabling the imposition of income tax on officers and
employees of the U.S., because it is an excise taxable privilege to
work for the Government.
But there are no regulations authorizing canvassing any internal
revenue districts for Subtitle A Individual income tax, or Subtitle
C employment tax no matter
where these districts are located.

It s of more than passing interest to note that
lacking any statutory or regulatory authority in the 50 states, the
IRS, BATF, and other alphabet soup agencies, can be required by law
to apply for permission to enter these states, as registered foreign agents,
pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. For
they are operating under
international law, not under the general, plenary powers of
4:3:2 of the U.S. Constitution, as is the case in the federal zone,
but rather under the specifically authorized enumerated special
powers of 1:8, therein.

Perhaps it would be easier to understand that
IRS personnel are "agents of a foreign principal," if one recalls
that our Secretary of the Treasury is also the Governor of the
International Monetary Fund and the Bank of Reconstruction and
Development, to which he was appointed, per the Bretton Woods
Agreements Act, of 1944 (22 U.S.C. 286). And, pursuant to Section 3 of
this Act, as amended, the U.S. Governor/Councilor is prohibited
"from receiving salary or other compensation from the U.S.
Government."

Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the
term agent of a foreign principal means--
(1) any person who acts as an agent, representative employee, or
servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request,
or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal
or a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly
supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in
whole or in major part, by a foreign principal, and who directly
or through any other person

(i) engages within the United States in political activities
for or in

the interests of such foreign principal;

(iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disperses, or
dispenses contributions, loans money, or other things of value
for or in the interests of such foreign principal
(Emphasis added.)

This should suffice to establish, as stated
above, that Internal Revenue personnel are agents operating under
the authority, control, and jurisdiction of a foreign principal, as
laid out in the
Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund,
Article IX, Section 3. And,
22 U.S.C. §286h of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act
indicates that:

The provisions of article IX, sections 2 to 9, both inclusive
of the Articles of Agreement of the Bank, shall have full force
and effect in the [federal District] United States and its
Territories and possessions upon acceptance of membership by the
United States in, and the establishment of, the Fund and the
Bank, respectively.
(Emphasis added.)

That Internal Revenue employees are foreign
agents is also established by the International Organizations
Immunities Act, of 1945, and found at
22 U.S.C. §288 and 288f.

In other words, the U.S. has relinquished its
sovereignty to these organizations of the UN, and must operate under
the above charter i.e., the Articles of Agreement of the Bank and
the Fund. Refer to
22 U.S.C. §286e indeed all of 286.

(Speaking of relinquishing sovereignty, I must
interject, here, that the Congressional Research Service wrote: "As
a member of the WTO [World Trade Organization], the United States
does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral
body. It [the U.S.] is legally obligated to ensure national laws do
not conflict with WTO rules." (8/25/99) To put teeth to this, the
Wall Street Journal wrote: "A recent decision by the 'WTO Appellate
Body' ruled that $2.2 billion in United States tax breaks violate
WTO rules and must be eliminated by October 1, 2000." What
constitutes 'United States' changes almost daily, it seems.)

That this has substance is demonstrated by the
fact that sheriffs can, and have, limited the entry of IRS agents
into their county. Agents have even been thrown in jail, and let out
only on condition that they don t return! In some counties there are
virtually no liens and levies filed, or prosecutions for failure to
file tax returns. For, all these three actions are ultra vires
performed without delegated authority granted sub curia,
under law.

The following is from a communication I
received recently, concerning what the famous Bighorn Sheriff did, a
couple of years ago:

Sheriff Dave Mattis stated that all federal officials are
forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval. If a
sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the
constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to
leave or retain them in
custody. The court decision came about after Mattis
and other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a
suit against
both the BATF and the
IRS
in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the
protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the
Wyoming Constitution. The District Court ruled in favor of the
sheriffs, stating that Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly
elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement
official within a county and has law enforcement powers
exceeding that of any other state or federal official. The
sheriffs are also demanding that
federal agencies
immediately cease the seizure of private property and the
impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due
process in state courts. (Emphasis added.)

Another wrinkle in this garment can be seen by
the fact that I specifically recall hearing, some years ago, that
some congressperson or senator (I forget who) registered as a
foreign agent in the State that elected him. For, the annotated
Title 18 lists a half a dozen cases ruling that a member of Congress
is an officer of the 'United States' and I think that you are
becoming informed enough to realize which 'United States' .and that
it is a foreign government under private international law. (See
section 21, below, which is so titled.)

This brings to mind some clear, indisputable, but oft-forgot
words of the Supreme Court:

"The Government of the United States is one of enumerated
powers;
it has no inherent
powers of sovereignty. "
[Kansas v. Colorado, 206 US 46 (1906) (Emphasis added.)]

Because of its importance, I want to focus a
bit more on the Hawaii Omnibus Act (Vol. 74, Public Law 86-624). It
is described as "An Act To amend certain laws of the United States
in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union " It
constitutes 13 pages of intriguing amendments to various federal
statutes and codes, that the government was forced to promulgate
which is really a stand-alone expos" of the contortions that the
federal government goes through to mask its identity, and, thereby,
to mislead Americans into believing that they are subject to laws
which they are not. But, if we weren t so hopelessly indoctrinated,
this Act, by itself, would shatter the delusion that all Americans
are statutory "U.S. citizens" and, therefore, subject to all the federal codes
and laws.

I recommend reading the whole Act, for I can
only call attention to a few points, among this embarrassment of
riches, as the French say.

Section 4262(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(relating to the definition of continental United States for
purposes of the tax on transportation of persons) is amended to
read as follows: (1) Continental United States. The term
"continental United States" means the District of Columbia and
the States
other than
Alaska and Hawaii. (Underline added. Parenthesis in original.)

The use of "other than" implies that Alaska and Hawaii were
previously States" similar to whatever political bodies were
referred to by the preceding word, "States." To further verify this
is the case, it is necessary to go back to the also important Alaska
Omnibus Act, of the 86th Congress, Volume 73, 1959, which
accommodated the statutes and codes to Alaska s having been made a
state. We read at 48:

Whenever the phrase continental United States is used
in any law of the United States enacted after the date of
enactment of this Act, it shall mean the 49 States on the North
American Continent [which would include, now, Alaska] and the
District of Columbia [as in section 25(b) of the Hawaii Omnibus
Act], unless otherwise
expressly provided. (Emphasis added.)

There is the catch unless otherwise expressly provided! One need
only look at Section 22 to see where it is so provided for it is
obviously not so in 18(a), above:

(a) and sections
3121(e)(1) [remember this section from the Kennelly
letter?],
3306(j),
4221(d)(4), and
4233(b) of such code (each relating to a special definition of State
) are amended by striking out Alaska.(Parentheses in original. Emphasis added.)

(b) Section
4262(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (definition
of continental United States ) is amended to read as follows:
(1) The continental United States. The term continental United
States means the District of Columbia and the States
other than Alaska.
(Emphasis added.)

Here, in this section, Hawaii, despite being
comprised of islands in the middle of the Pacific, is considered, by
implication, to be part of the continental U.S. For otherwise it
would not have been thought necessary to exclude it from the same
section, 4262(c)(1), a few months later, after Hawaii was taken into
the union. In words of law islands can be termed continental; there
is no necessary relationship to the world as normally defined. Thus,
with Hawaii and Alaska, we view how a
State ceases to be a
State when it becomes a
state!

So, in answer to our question, above, the
"States other than," in this section of the Hawaii Omnibus Act,
can refer
only to the
federal States
of Guam, the Northern Marianas, etc.

One should also note Section 27 of the Hawaii
Omnibus Act:

(b) striking out the words continental United States, its
Territories, and possessions in section 211(j) and inserting in
lieu thereof the words
States of the Union, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the possessions of the United States. (Emphasis
added.)

Here, the use of its indicates that the federal
territorial U.S. is being referred to, for the 50 union states
obviously don t possess any Territories; its agency, the U.S., does.
In fact, there are no more incorporated Territories, now that Hawaii
has become a union state
hence, the need to expunge the word from any definition of the
United States.

This interpretation is substantiated by the
numerous times that continental is struck out of the phrase
continental United States, in this Act
indicating that all along, in these instances, continental United
States was no different than the federal corporate territorial
District United States
it just had a slightly different makeup incorporating the
Territory (federal State) of Hawaii.

There is another facet of these amendments
which cries out for mention, such as seen in the following:

striking out continental United States in clause (ii) of such
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof United States (which for
the purposes of this
sentence and the nextsentence means the
fifty States and the District of Columbia) . (Section
14(d)(2)) (Emphasis added.)

The term United States means (but
only for purposes of this subsection and subsection (a))
the fifty States and the District of Columbia. (Section
29(d)(3)) (Emphasis added.)

In other words, only
on rare occasions in the codes and statutes is it found necessary to
refer to the 50 States. Only in a sentence here, or in a
subsection there each such occasion being scrupulously noted, and disclaimed as being the
norm, just as above. Which fact alone, one would think,
would suggest to even a school child that
elsewhere
this was not the case. It is almost like they are waving
a red flag and exclaiming:
Please be advised that only in this specific and particular instance
are we compelled and allowed to make reference to the 50 union
states united by and under the Constitution.

Yet, look what here replaced the continental United States in
27(b), above: "States of
the Union, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
possessions of the United States." Just as it was in the preceding
subsection, 27(a) as well as in 8(a), 36, and 38.

This presents a problem, for everyone believes that this phrase
stands for the 50 union states. And, yet here, in this section, at
least, it is being equated, with the territorial United States. I
will let the reader ponder the solution of this conundrum, for I
have no answer. I would recall to your mind a similar appropriation
of the term "United States of America" that I discuss in section 2.

In any event, States of the Union
unmistakably refers
to the 50 union states in Section 45 of the Hawaii Omnibus Act:

purchases of typewriters

Title I of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1960,
is, [sic] amended by striking out the words for the purchase
within the continental limits of the United States of any
typewriting machines and inserting in lieu thereof for the
purchase within the States of the Union and the District of
Columbia of any typewriting machines .

This is because, previously typewriters had been bought from
Alaska and Hawaii which,
as Territories, were, therefore, "within the continental limits of
the United States."
Now, as two of the fifty States of the Union, they were
not within the
continental limits of the federal United States.

So, a show of hands. Who still believes that the States referred
to in the codes unless pointedly qualified embraces the 50 union
states?

Along with the instances I have noted, there is
another place in which the deviousness and sneakiness of the IRS
really shows. In three sections of the IRC they need to encompass
all union states. In
4132(7) they say that U.S. has the meaning that it does in
4612(a)(4), where the 50 States are mentioned. Then, in
4672(b)(2), they remove
it yet another stage, saying that it has the meaning that it
does in
4662(a)(2), wherein it says that it has the meaning that it does
in
4612(a)(4)! They just do not like to use the words "50 States!"
All of which calls more attention to the fact that the code only
rarely has occasion to refer the 50 union states.

And, they actually cannot do so, except
where required, as above. For, as some like to put it, they are to a
great extent, though not exclusively, writing the employment
conditions for those who work for the federal government, as
well as for those two categories mentioned at the beginning of the
IRC and its regulations. E.g.,
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1:

Income tax on individuals(a) General rule. (1) Section
1 of the Code imposes an income tax
on the income of
every individual who is a citizen or resident of the [federal
District] United States. (Emphasis added.)

The first sentence in the IRC reads somewhat differently. Part 1
is titled simply:

Tax on individuals. Section 1 Tax imposed. (a)Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving
spouses.
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income
of (Emphasis added.)

Be aware that all headings in the code
are without any legal force or effect, as pointed out by the IRC,
itself, in
26 U.S.C. §7806(b). The heading or title, here, is guilefully
misdirecting, for there never has been and never could be an
"income tax" on individuals
except an apportioned tax or a capitation tax. It would be
unconstitutional and the federal District government generally makes
a great effort to write (albeit deviously) its laws in conformity
with the Constitution. This wording is, doubtlessly, to give the
impression that it is a
direct tax. Indeed, the very first sentence of 26 CFR, after the
heading, states what most taxpayers (incorrectly) believe
that the tax is on. It s "an income tax on the income " or,
as 26 U.S.C. words it, "on the taxable income " So, in both
cases, in less than a dozen words, there is a switch from a tax on "individuals"
to one on "income"
or "taxable income."

This leads to the embarrassing question as to
what exactly is "income."
This is a moot point, of course unless one is a taxpayer. But, I
will pursue the matter in order to provide a full understanding as
to why the IRS feels compelled to indicate in everyone s Individual
Master File that all
individual income taxpayers are corporations, and pay
corporate income tax.

Congress does not try to define internal
revenue
income in the code, or elsewhere and the Supreme Court
says that they (Congress) can not do so! Section 61 of the IRC,
weasels out by simply defining "gross
income." But that's like defining a green apple as an apple that
is the color green without defining apple.

It might be of passing interest that Section
61, one of the most crucial sections of Subtitle A,
has not had any legitimate
application for a number of years. Briefly, a footnote to
Section 61 of the 1954 revision of the IRC reads: "Source;
Sec.22(a), 1939 Code, substantially unchanged." The Parallel Table
of Authorities in the Index of the C.F.R. indicates that 26 U.S.C. §22, of
the 1939 IRC, corresponds to 26 C.F.R. Part 519. A following table
shows that Part 519 is the Canadian Tax Treaty, a 75 year treaty
signed in 1918, which expired in 1993, and is
now not operative, but shown as reserved for future use.
So,Section 61 does not, and
never did, define taxable income from American sources,
but rather from Canadian sources. One of the many gems hidden right
out in plain view. The deception is not that the documentation isn t
available; it s that the IRS proceeds on its course knowingly
ignoring it.

[I]t becomes essential to distinguish what is and what is not
"income" and .Congress cannot by any definition it may
adopt conclude the matter.

After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to
add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising
under the Corporation Act of l909 (Stratton
s Independence v. Howbert,
231 U.S.399, 415;
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.,
247 U.S. 179, 185) "Income may be defined as the gain
derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," providedit
be understood to include profit gained through a sale or
conversion of capital assets,
to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp.
183, 185)

"Derived from capital" Here we have the essential
matter:
not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth
or increment of value in the investment but a
gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceedingfrom the property, severed from the
capital however invested or employed, and coming in,
being "derived," that is, received, or drawn by
the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use,
benefit, and disposal
that is income derived from property. Nothing else
answers the description.

The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the
Sixteenth Amendment "incomes, from whatever source
derived " Eisner at pp. 206-208. (Italics are in the
original text; bold added.)

This powerful, pithy, and very lucid treatment should have
prevented the IRS from
equating "gross incomes" with "gross receipts." As it was
put in Conner v. United States, 303 F Supp. 1187, 1991,
(1969):

Income is nothing more nor less than realized gain .It
is not synonymous with receipts .If there is no gain
there is no income Congress has taxed income,
not compensation.
(Emphasis added. Other cases state the same.)

In Eisner, above, "profit" and "gain" were meant to limit the
meaning of "income" to "profit gained through a sale or conversion
of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case."
To what was it applied? The Supreme Court stated, in Doyle (at 179):

Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and
scientific definition of income, it imports, as used here the
idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."
(Emphasis added.)

By the act of August 5, 1909, a special excise tax was
imposed upon the privilege of carrying on business by
corporations. It was in reality a license to carry on
business
.The Income Tax Act of October 3, 1913, should be considered as
a statutory construction
of the act of August 5, 1909, in so far as it related to the
basis of taxation. (December Term, 1916-17 [52 C.
Cls.] Emphasis added.)

The above can have any
pertinence, of course,
only if
one is subject to and liable for the normal tax, called income
tax.
What conceivable
relevance could the precise definition of income or gross income
have for someone not so subject and liable?! Arguing that
one has none of this ill-defined stuff called income implies that if
you did you believe that you would then be potentially liable for
federal income tax.

This rests on the fallacy
that
earned property is
the subject of income tax. But both the House Congressional
Record and the Supreme Court have decimated this belief:

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.
It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and
privileges
which is measured by reference to the income which they
produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the
basis for determining the amount of tax. (House Congressional
Record, 3-27-43, page 2580. Emphasis added.)

Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commodities within a country, upon licenses to
pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges."
Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680. (Flint v. Stone
Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151 (1911).)

And, they go on to say, "the element of demand is lacking.
If business is not done in
the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable." (loc
cit, at 151-152.) (Emphasis added.)

Note, too, a later ruling of the Supreme Court:

The 16th Amendment contains nothing repudiating or
challenging the ruling of the Pollock case The contention that
the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax is wholly
without foundation The 16th Amendment, as
correctly interpreted, was
limited to indirect [excise] taxes, and for that
reason is Constitutional. (Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co,
240 US 1. Emphasis added.)

So, the so-called income tax is really a
privilege or excise tax measured by the income produced by the
exercise of such government privilege. This property (income) is not
what is taxed;
it s only a means of measuring how much to charge for the taxable activity,
of which the taxpayer voluntarily avails him/herself. Not indulging
in any such privileged activity, one would, eo ipso, have no taxable
year (26
USC §6012), and, therefore, all discussion of gross income (26
USC §61) would be moot and pointless making the filing of a tax
return uncalled for...indeed, perjurous..

In any event, this is the standard so-called
patriot approach. And it seems reasonable, at first blush to me, at
least if I didn't know about Title 15 Commerce and Trade, 17
Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations. I well
remember when I verified this at the law library, a few years ago; I
had to see it in print. The first sentence reads: "THE
LABOR OF A HUMAN BEING IS NOT A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE OF COMMERCE."
(Emphasis added.)On first encountering this, I thought
that it must surely be one of the biggest oversights the code
lawyers ever permitted to make its way into the codes. Why? Because
it means that
human labor cannot be
subject to an indirect tax, an excise tax, in the above
areas when not working for the government. When you get commerce out
of the picture, you have got government out of the picture! If ever
there was a marriage made in heaven, it is commerce and government.
All of which is a good segue into the following section, which seeks
to show that even if a tax, direct or indirect, could be imposed on
someone, it would not be possible to calculate

The
following establishes the impossibility of being able to calculate
any Subtitle A tax obligation for any human taxpayer.
Strong words, but the government can t find anyone to refute them.

I will start by quoting the following cases,
which are a beautiful summary of the points that I want to present:

The word "profit" is defined in Black s Law
Dictionary
(3rd edition) as "The advance in the price of
goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. The gain made by the
sale of produce or manufactures,
after deducting the value of
LABOR,
the materials, rents, and all expenses, together with the
interest of the capital employed." There is a clear
distinction between "profit" and "wages" or compensation for
labor. (Emphasis added.)
[Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E.2d 858 (1955); 196 Va. 992,
994 (1955)]

"Compensation for
labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.
The Word profit, as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon
any business or investment
a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor."
Commercial League Association of America v. People ex rel.
Needles, Auditor, 90 Ill. 166. "Reasonable compensation for
labor or services rendered is not profit."
[Lauderdale Cemetery Association v. Matthews, 354 Pa. 239,
47 A. (2d) 277. (Emphasis added.)]

The point is, that even if someone were subject
to Subtitle A income tax, it would be totally
impossible to calculate the expenses the taxpayer could deduct, in
order to arrive at his "gain" or "profit." The correct
way of viewing this, however, is set forth in 26 U.S.C. 83, its
regulations, and in Publication 17 Tax Guide for Individuals:
Basis. The Fair Market Value or
contract value of labor
can not be taxed, for there is no excessotherwise, the contract would not represent fair value, for both
the parties. (See
26 C.F.R. §1.83-3(g).)
Right in the Code, then, it says that our labor does not have a zero
basis we are not, it admits, giving our labor away for nothing!
In brief, labor is property, all property is cost, and cost is
deductible. Ergo, nil debit, nothing is owed!

If the hundred million individual income tax
taxpayers seem to refute the fact that all are paying a corporate
tax, look at any of the correspondence they receive like the first
letter sent to late filers, the CP 515. To find out what such
numbers mean, one must go to the inch thick 6209 Manual, every page
of which is marked "for official use only," and a few years ago was
confiscated from defendants, in court though it can now be found on
a U.S. Government website. It decodes The Individual Master File
(IMF), which the IRS has for every taxpayer i.e., basically,
everyone who has ever filed a tax return or signed a Form W-4. All
correspondence is recorded, together with everything else they have
entered about you. You will find there, in Section 9, that
Computer
Paragraphs, like the
CP 515, with three digits, refer only to businesses!
(Please refer to the
Maryland Casualty Co. case, above.) Yet, three digits are
what
every individual filer receives. So, there are over 100
million businesses filing returns, without realizing it. They
certainly would, if they bothered to decode their IMF!

For lo and behold! They would probably read
there that they have been designated as narcotics traffickers. They
would find that their IMF has a TC (transaction code), say, of 914
and, say, a 307.301 blocking series, which indicates a criminal
violation of the US/UK Tax Treaty. This indicates a (refutable,
fortunately)
presumption that you
have secured a loan in the Cayman Islands, to purchase narcotics for
sale in the Virgin Islands,
without paying the backup withholding, on Form 8288.

Utterly outrageous as it sounds,
this is the usual default
notation in the IMF. Though I know several people with
others. Like an acquaintance, Richard S., who is classified as
having a machine shop in Puerto Rico, and his wife is said to be
manufacturing machine guns in the Virgin Islands.

All filers are transmogrified, by some strange
magic, into businesses exercising government privileges, and,
thereby, effectively connected to the federal zone.

QED, they are taxpayers which, of course, they
have sworn under penalties of perjury that they were, anyway, by
signing the Form 1040. However, the government feels that it needs
more than that. In any event, present the IRS with a decoded copy of
your IMF, for the year(s) in question, in a pre-trial conference,
and check your stopwatch to see how fast you are out of there!

One s IMF is easily obtainable, by a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request. Two experts, who have decoded over
2000 IMFs, have yet to find one that did not indicate some
drug-related activity, the manufacture of machine guns, etc.

But, interestingly, you cannot obtain records
concerning yourself under the Privacy Act, for that Act only deals
with
records of "natural
persons" and not entitydocuments on
businesses, etc. They will send your IMF to you, and say that it is
in response to your FOIA request. If you really persist, they will
give you excuses. For, the 124 files that the IRS has access to are allentity modules,
and an entity is not a living person, but a fictitious creation,
like a corporation.

I believe that the term nonresident alien warrants more detailed
study.

To begin with, one must note the unfortunate fact that the IRC
would like to give the impression that two different meanings of the
term nonresident alien are the same simply by choosing this
off-putting phrase. After all, it simply means, as stated at
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) Nonresident alien:

An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is
neither a citizen of the [District] United States nor a resident
of the [District] United States

That is, he is "Citizen of California", say, who
does not reside in the federal zone. OR, Canadians
and Mexicans, for the most part, who work in the union states, but
reside in their home country. But, it sounds like someone from Mars.
A newly arrived Frenchman, taking up residence in, say, Alabama is a
green card
resident alien or an immigrant. If he were just
travelling here, and not working, he would be just a tourist. For
these terms have meaning only within the state of the forum (forum
contractus, a place of jurisdiction in the present case, the tax
forum) of the IRC. And, if you don t work or receive 1099 payments,
you don t exist as far as the IRS is concerned.

According to the
IRS
Publication 519 U.S. Guide for Aliens, anyone who
is not a federal statutory franchisee called a "U.S. citizen" is some kind of alien,
which would be practically
the whole of America, outside the federal zone, if well over
200 million of them hadn t volunteered, in numerous ways.

I would like to interject a few words on
Subtitle A being called by some a voluntary tax. This, of course, is
an oxymoron; tax is an exaction imposed by the government. One can
voluntarily choose to gift the government, but in doing so one is
not paying a tax. Subtitle A has definite requirements that must be
adhered to by the certain specified individuals such as that
nonresident aliens must pay for the privilege of earning money in
the District U.S., if they are Americans, or anywhere in America, if
they are, say, Mexicans residing in their country, but working in
this country. Or federal, State, or municipal employees living
anywhere.

In the original California Code of 1872, it
states that one is
either a Citizen of this State, a Citizen of another State, or an
alien from anywhere else in the world Japan or England,
say, or the District United
States. That is, if one is not a state Citizen, then s/he
is a resident alien,
subject to the total control of the corporate State wherein s/he
lives. A state Citizen, on the other hand, is obviously "nonresident"
to anywhere else, including the territorial "United
States."

A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the [federal]
United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth,
if this birth occurs in a territory over which the [federal]
United States is [completely] sovereign (3A Am Jur 1420, art.
Aliens and Citizens)

[T]he phrase subject to the jurisdiction relates to time of
birth, and one not owing allegiance at birth cannot become a
Citizensave by subsequent
naturalization, individually or collectively. The
words do not mean merely geographical location, but
completely subject to the political jurisdiction.
"
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102 (1884). (Emphasis
added.)

Individual naturalization must follow
certain steps: (a) petition for naturalization by a person of
lawful age who has been a lawful resident of the United States
[i.e., one of the union states or the federal zone] for 5 years;
(c) hearing before a U.S. District Court or certain State courts
of record "
Black s Law Dictionary (6th edition, art.
naturalization )

Absent proof of such actions, one cannot be legally labeled a statutory "U.S.
citizen" per 8 U.S.C. §1401,
subject to the territorial corporate United States
Government. In fact, Congress has made it a CRIME under 18 U.S.C.
§911 to falsely claim such status for those who do not in fact and
in deed have a domicile on federal territory. How can they do
this, you might as? Well, rights attach to the status under
federal civil law, and all such rights are statutory creations of
Congress and therefore property of the national government.
They are simply criminalizing abuse of their property under their
protection franchise contract or "social compact". Very few people realize this, even in the so-called
Patriot community. It is a golden nugget.
Indeed, one is perjuring oneself by claiming to be a statutory "U.S. citizen",
if s/he was born in a union state, not naturalized, and not
currently under the complete jurisdiction of the federal government,
as by living in D.C. or on an army base. Although, as one IR
agent said, one would never be prosecuted for this!

Although one could be! Title 18 Chapter 43
False personation Section 911 Citizen of the United States,
says, in toto:

Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a
citizen of the United States shall be fined not more than $1,000
or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Nonresidence presumed. An alien by reason of his
alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.

Therefore, unless it could be proved that one has a domicile on
federal territory, his/her statutory alienage
to the District government is indisputable. QED, one is a
statutory "nonresident alien".

An increasing number of would-be PTs (Previous Taxpayers) are
submitting Form W-8 to their employers, in this regard. The reason
will be clear upon reading this excerpt from the General
Instructions of this
Certificate of Foreign Status:

Use Form W-8 or a substitute form containing a substantially
similar statement to tell the payer that you are a NONRESIDENT ALIEN
individual, foreign entity, or exempt foreign personnot subject to certain U.S. information return reporting or
backup withholding rulesFor purposes of this form,
you are an "exempt
foreign person" for a calendar year in which: 1. You are a nonresident
alien individual2. You are an individual who
has not been, and plans not to be, present in the [federal
District] United States for a total of 183 days or more during
the calendar year, and 3. You are neither engaged, nor
plan to be engaged during the year, in a [federal] U.S. trade or
business that has effectively connected gains from transactions
with a broker or barter exchange . Payments to account holders
who are foreign persons (nonresident
alien individuals, foreign corporations, partnerships,
estates, or trusts) generally are not required to have a
TIN, nor are they subject to any backup withholding
because they do not furnish a TIN to a payer or broker. However,
foreign persons with income effectively connected with a trade
or business in the [federal] United States (income subject to
regular (graduated) income tax), must have a TIN.
(Emphasis added.)

Performing this simple act establishes that this non-immigrant,
non-naturalized, freeborn state Citizen/American is someone
to whom
26 C.F.R. §1.871-7(1) applies wherein it states:

a nonresident alien individual Is Not Subject To The
Tax Imposed By Section 1. (i.e., Subtitle A Income
Taxes,
Part 1 Tax on Individuals. Emphasis added.)

If this case had been given its justly deserved
attention and
correctly interpreted, most
Americans would never have had any federal tax worries!! And,
while most seem to think that the Brushaber case was written by
Chief Justice Edward D. White in a most enigmatic and tortuous
prose, we have one of the clearest and most lucid expositions
imaginable in Treasury Decision 2313, which was promulgated a few
months later, in order to implement this Court decision. In this TD,
the government is uncharacteristically unambiguous, unequivocal,
undisguised, and expresses its points clearly and succinctly.
(Please see the Appendix for the complete document one of the most
important parts of this paper.)

In
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.,
240 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court affirmed on January 24, 1916 that
the District 'United States' could tax income of nonresident aliens
in this case, Mr. Brushaber that was derived from sources within the
District 'United States.'

Fact # 1. In the case, just as in his
Complaint, Frank R. Brushaber swore to being "a citizen of the State
of New York and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the City
of New York" and the Court agreed with this vital point. Indeed, the
nonresident aliency of Mr. Brushaber is the whole raison d "tre for
the promulgation of TD 2313, necessitated by this case.

Later, the government tried to say that he was
an NRA by virtue of the fact that he was native to France. But that
is ridiculous, for that would make him a
resident alien. For
he lived and worked in New York making him, eo ipso, a nonresident
of the 'United States' and alien to its jurisdiction.

No, the Court concurred totally with his
self-proclaimed status as being a nonresident alien. What they
didn't agree with was that the Union Pacific RR Co. was also such.

Fact # 2. The Union Pacific RR, the Court
proclaimed,
was a
resident of the District United States. Mr. Brushaber made the
mistake in his Complaint of not realizing that Utah was still a
territory when The Union Pacific was incorporated, on July 1, 1862,
by an Act of the U.S. Congress, making it domestic to the District
United States. Had Utah then been a state of the union, he would
have won his case.

I believe it fair to say that the case hinges
only on the establishment of these two facts which, when fairly
read, are absolutely incontestable, and permissive of no multiple
interpretations. For, on the one hand, as you have seen, in
26 U.S.C. §872Gross Income, quoted above: "In the case of a
nonresident alien individual gross income includes ONLY (1) gross income which
is derived from sources within the United States "
(Emphasis added.)

On the other hand, you might also recall:

"An
individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the
United States nor a resident of the United States."
[26
USC §7701(b)(1)(B). Emphasis added.) ]

And, reading the case and the TD, one sees that
beyond any doubt
both the Supreme Court and Secretary of Treasury are interpreting
the term United States, in the above two quotations, to mean
precisely what I have been saying it means not the whole country,
but the territorial or District United States, exclusively.

The circumstances were that a cash dividend had
been declared on stocks and bonds of the Union Pacific RR Co. owned
by Frank Brushaber, and he believed that it was unconstitutional to
claim that he owed income tax on this money, due to the undisputed
fact that he was outside the forum contractus, and he
mistakenly believed the Union Pacific was, as well. As you are now
in a position to agree, the Court correctly ruled otherwise, as
quoted above in section 10. For, as a foreigner, availing himself of
the privilege of earning income from a domestic (i.e., District
U.S.) corporation, he was obligated to pay an excise tax. As Justice
White put it in this case:

[T]he conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any
degree involve holding that income taxes generically and
necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property,
but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was
in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such
.... (Emphasis added.)

The Court s finding that it was perfectly
constitutional to levy an Income Tax from Brushaber has been the
principal evidence the IRS chooses to throw at everyone who doubts
that both the 16th
Amendment, and the imposition of income tax on basically everyone,
is constitutional.

Actually, the 16th Amendment is
something of a non-issue, since the Supreme Court has ruled several
times that this Amendment in no way alters any taxing powers of the
United States. (I say something of because public perception
overrides the legal facts together with unchallenged
misinterpretations of some Appellate Courts.)

And, while many are railing over the fact that
it was never lawfully ratified, I know of very few who claim that
it, or the IRC, is unconstitutional when lawfully applied, as in the
instant case. Those who really understand Title 26, hope it never
changes and, of course, it can not substantially do so, and remain
constitutional. For, with the help of TD 2313, it should be clear to
those who can and will read which, unfortunately, limits the field
that very few Americans really are obligated to pay any income tax
if they are careful as to how they structure their lives.

Of course, even if they were to make some
investment in a U.S. corporation, like Frank B. did, they would only
owe tax on that particular portion of their total earnings if the
rest of their income derived from outside the federal zone.

It goes mostly unnoticed that his dividend
money earned in the District United States is
all that the court
is saying that Brushaber is obligated to pay not what he earned while
living and working in New York!! There, the U.S. has no
jurisdiction to impose an income tax, and the Court well knew it.
For, he was not a statutory "U.S. citizen" without a domicile on
federal territory.

I would be inexcusably remiss and derelict if I
didn't warn you of the egregious twisting of the facts in another
interpretation
indeed, this, or
something roughly similar, is forced on those who still mistakenly hold onto
the definition of a "U.S. citizen" as being synonymous with American
which is how the government would like you to believe it is to be
interpreted in the Internal Revenue Code.

Although the following is not the only
incorrect presentation of the Brushaber case and TD 2313, it is the
worst one I could imagine,
and
it is repeated verbatim on a number of websites:

[I]f you look this case up and read it [which
I would advise the writer doing], you will see that
the Supreme Court tells Frank Brushaber (an American citizen) [right;
not a U.S. citizen] that the tax IS Constitutional
(as an indirect excise) and that he (Brushaber) has to pay it
(the income tax). [Right;
HE
has to pay it not act as a withholding agent, who withholds
from some other person, as you state below.] The IRS
relies on, and cites, this Court ruling, as absolute proof that
the income tax IS CONSTITUTIONAL. AND THEY ARE RIGHT. [Correct
so far] HOWEVER, Frank Brushaber, a citizen, FILED
THIS LAW SUIT ON BEHALF OF HIS FOREIGN PRINCIPALS, FROM WHOM HE
WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD INCOME TAX AS THEIR (the
foreigners ) US (withholding) AGENT. [I
can not imagine where they dreamed this up from; he was a
shareholder, not a withholding agent.] FRANK GOT TOLD
TO PAY THE TAX ON THE INCOME OF FOREIGNERS, NOT HIS OWN INCOME.
[It was his own
Income Tax that he didn't want to pay. And, HE
was the foreigner in the case; the RR Co. was domestic.]
And Treasury Decision 2313 clearly [apparently
not to you!] shows the orders resultant within the
IRS as a result of this Supreme Court decision. THIS IS A CASE
ABOUT THE TAXATION OF FOREIGNERS [right!]
WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS and enjoy a government granted PRIVILEGE in
being allowed access to the American markets to earn money. [Correct
for non-American immigrants; but, for Americans, as this case
proves, the privileged area or domain is the District U.S. only,
not the 50 states.] IT IS NOT A CASE RELATED TO THE
TAXATION OF A Citizen's OWN INCOME EARNED BY RIGHT. [The
earnings involved were not such, of course, but by extrapolation
it has direct relevance to helping determine one s income earned
by right.] IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL FRAUD TO MISREPRESENT
THIS CASE AS APPLICABLE, OR RELATED, TO THE ISSUE OF TAXATION OF
CITIZENS [that is
precisely who it is about non-federal state Citizen/Americans,
not resident in the District U.S. and, since not being totally
under its jurisdiction, an alien thereof in other words, a
nonresident alien], AS THE IRS HAS DONE FOR OVER 60
YEARS !!! (This is copied from jerseyguy.com/brushaber.html. All
emphasis was in the original. Condensed into one paragraph.)

It was stated above that Frank Brushaber "filed this law suit on
behalf of his foreign principals." Actually, in his Bill of
Complaint, filed on 3/13/14, with the District Court of the United
States, Southern District of New York, he

brings this his bill against Union Pacific Railroad Company,
a corporation and citizen of the State of Utah [wrong,
see above] having its executive office and a place of
business in the Borough of Manhattan, in the City of New York,
and the Southern District of New York [but
its residence and tax home in the District of Columbia]
IN HIS OWN BEHALF
and on behalf of any and all of the stockholders of the
defendant
Union Pacific Railroad Company who may join in the prosecution
and contribute to the expenses of this suit. (Emphasis added.)

For the average American this should be, beyond
contention, the most momentous, and consequential Supreme Court case
ever tried together, of course, with the beautifully lucid TD 2313,
which implements it. For, they nail down two major points: the
unambiguous and unarguable definition of the United States, and the
income tax obligations of most Americans due to their relationship
to this particular United States namely, NONE.

It seems almost beyond belief that these two
precious documents were ignored by the American taxpayer, at the
time. Reading them today, it is indeed unfathomable that they did
not become a watershed event, completely precluding the events that
have ensued. As it happened, however, not much happened until over
half a century later. But, since then, many thousands of previous
taxpayers have elected out of the system. In section 2 I mentioned
where the code permitted this, at 26 U.S.C. 6013
(g)Election to treat nonresident alien individual as
resident of the United States (4) Termination of election (A)
Revocation by taxpayers,
which allowsa nonresident alien to re-establish his/her
previous status (one time only see subsection 5), after having
knowingly or unknowingly elected to "be
treated as a resident of the United States." (6013(g)(1).)
In other words, this is an escape hatch to get out of the system
that one almost always inadvertently entered, when filing his/her
first Form 1040 in order to get a refund, at the age of 14. One
thereby declared oneself a
resident of the District United States, as well as a
statutory "U.S. citizen"
per 8 U.S.C. §1401, for
tax purposes. But, Section
6013 allows one to revoke this uninformed choice. I won t go
into why such relief must be written into statutory law, but believe
me, they wouldn t do it if they didn't need to.

After pondering the matter, I have concluded
that it is incumbent upon me to at least reveal that there is, as I
just discovered two weeks ago (this is July, 00) a company that
takes people through this process by writing a minimum of 22
letters! and with results guaranteed. I spoke with the founder, as
well as reading the company s sufficiently extensive literature
which was
in absolutely precise
agreement
with the interpretation in the instant paper. I found him to be a
very knowledgeable, sympathetic, and easygoing individual, and I
have no reason to doubt him when he says that his company has
experienced over 400 successes, in less than a year and no failures.
After all, why should it, it is based on IRC regulations and each
individual s true state of affairs?

Understanding the precise wording of statutes or the code and its
regulations, as above, is of utmost importance. For

no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by The
United States except pursuant to an act of Congress. (18
USC §4001(a) )

So, at least theoretically, one is on safe grounds if one abides
scrupulously by the words of Congressional laws. In
Gould v. Gould,
245 US 151, the Supreme Court states that the courts must do the
same:

In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the
established rule not to extend their provisions by implication
beyond the clear import
of the language used, or to enlarge

their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically
pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly
against the government and in favor of the citizen. (Emphasis
added.)

The 9th Circuit, in 1986, expands on this
definitively, I believe:

We begin our interpretation by reading the statutes and
regulations for their plain meaning. The plain meaning rule
has its origin in
U.S. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 278 U.S. 269 (1929).
There the Supreme Court stated that "where the language of an
enactment is clear and construction according to its' terms does
not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the words
employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning
intended"...The principle was more recently affirmed in
Dickinson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103,103
S.C. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983), rehearing denied, 461 U.S. 911,
103 S.C. 1887, 76 LEd.2d 815 (1983), where the Court stated, "In
determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first at its
language. If the language is unambiguous, ... it is to be
regarded as conclusive
unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intent to
the contrary."
[United States v. Varlet, 780 F2d 758 at
761. (Emphasis added.)]

It is, of course, a struggle to compel the IRS to follow its own
rules and regulations as regards, for example, the voluntary nature
of submitting a Form W-4. They
will give in on
this, but usually not without a fight.

In 1957 was published the second volume of an
extremely important study, put out by the federal government:
Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of
Jurisdiction over Federal Areas with States. A text of the Law of
Legislation Jurisdiction.
It established, in painstaking detail, that only persons residing
within the legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress are
residents of that jurisdiction i.e., are U.S. residents.
It is made exhaustively manifest that this Congress does not extend
the jurisdiction of its legislative umbrella beyond the
Constitutionally restricted boundaries of territories of the United
States, "belonging to" its "exclusive sovereignty" "in all cases
whatsoever," e.g. the federal zone (D.C., the federal States,
possessions, and enclaves). In other words, the powers of the
federal government are limited to and specifically defined at 1:8:17
of the Constitution, where Congress can:

exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) [which will]
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other
needful Buildings...

Of course, today it has got totally out of
control, with the U.S. said to "own" over 900,000 square
miles of territory
in the union states!! (The size of Texas is 267,339 square miles.)
But, this is another story. Suffice it to say, the fact that it has
happened does not make it legal or lawful.

The state Citizen, then, is legislatively alien to
and is not
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty of the
territorial "United States". Of course the Frenchman who resides here
must pay income tax, but the American state Citizen is almost
totally free therefrom. (I qualify this elsewhere.) Remember Matthew
17, 25-26?

Tell me, Simon, from whom do earthly monarchs collect tribute
money? From their own people, or from aliens [ others or
strangers, in other translations]? From aliens, said Peter. Yes,
said Jesus, and their own people are exempt. (KJV.
Emphasis added.)

Most Americans are constitutionally exempt just as sovereign
state Citizens are exempt from State income tax, which is very
clearly spelled out in the statutes at least in those of the
California Republic as you will soon see. Incidentally, when
we use the word "exempt", we don't mean it in a STATUTORY context,
but in an ordinary context. This means that we are really
implying that they are "not subject" to any provision of the civil
law found in the Internal Revenue Code Subtitles A and C "public
office" franchise tax. To be statutorily "exempt", on the
other hand, implies that you are a "person" and an "individual"
subject to the franchise because lawfully occupying a public office
in the U.S. government, but who has no liabilitity by virtue of a
privileged exemption found within the franchise contract itself.

Having discussed nonresident alien, I think that I should
elaborate more on the resident part of it, as well as the
terms resident alien, and reside, and domicile.

The term resident has not a technical meaning. In some
statutes and for some purposes it means one thing, and in other
statutes and for other purposes it means another thing." (U.S.
v. Nardello, D.C. 4 Mackey 503. Also, see Black s Law
Dictionary, art. residence , etc.)

This is true, but it isn t too hard to find a common thread
running through its usage. Yet, for a full understanding there are a
few collateral terms and factors that one must deal with.

To begin with, let s look at the 18th century classic
of Emer De Vattel, Law of Nations:

Residents as distinguished from citizens, are aliens
who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country.
(Section 213, 1758.)

This might help us to realize that resident is
really short for
resident alien! It refers to someone who indicates a
desire to remain in one state/nation/country (these words are
synonymous in international law which is what we are dealing with)
while retaining a domicile
and, usually, citizenship in another i.e., a resident is someone who
is foreign to the state/nation/country in which they reside,
and, therefore, termed a resident alien
though alien, of course, is
almost always left off. It would raise too many questions, to
ask you on your application for a hunting license if you were a
resident alien, rather than a resident, of the
State! There are
well over 200 million Americans who are resident aliens where they
live, because they claim to be, and in the eyes
of the government
therefore are, domiciled in the District U.S., where ALL federal
statutory "U.S.
citizens" are domiciled. Not where they live, but where their legal tax home
is.

And, just where, precisely, is their legal tax home? One
startling definition is found in Subtitle C Employment Tax 26
CFR 31.3121(e)-1(b), where it says:

The term citizen of the United States includes [is
limited to] a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the
Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of
Guam or American Samoa. (Emphasis added.)

State Citizens, of course, are domiciled in
their non-corporate state, Republic, or Commonwealth. They never
claim to be residents in "the State of " on corporate State license
applications, etc. For this would be interpreted as them claiming to
be a resident alien always! And, remember who is taxed? The
foreigner, not the Citizen at least not in our constitutional
Republic.

Actually, one is not obligated, legally, even
to pay sales taxes, if the purchases are taken out "of the State,"
into the Republic, say, by taking them to your living quarters,
which is not in the federal zone. But, few businesses will sign the
paper, without an O.K. from the Tax Board and they won t give it. I
ve tried.

In brief, every American who classified
him/herself as a corporate statutory "U.S. citizen" franchiseee, residing in one of the 50
corporate States is also considered to be a statutory "resident alien". This is
because, although s/he is residing in a constitutional but not
statutory "State", s/he is domiciled in the federal
zone and, therefore, is an "alien". Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 17(b), the public office he or she occupies as a
statutory franchisee has a domicile in the place the "United States"
federal corporation was created, and therefore has an effective
domiicle in the District of Columbia regardless of where he or she
physically resides. QED, s/he is a resident
alien, and is taxed on the privilege of residing in the State.

(I analyze elsewhere the term of art, in
detail. And you will see that astonishingly! it refers only to the
federal territory in the geographical state and that you unknowingly perjure
yourself in claiming to reside there.)

State income tax is an excise tax, just
like federal income tax meaning it is payment for a privilege
received.

That is, a resident is a foreigner,
here doing business in a corporate county.

Of course, if one were to live in, say, the
Republic of California, rather than the corporate State of
California, that would be another matter, altogether. One does this
simply by declaring on a form that I understand every state provides
(in California it is Form 590), that one is a resident of, say,
"California," not the "State of California." And, presto! it
declares that his or her employer is no longer required to withhold
any tax. Furthermore, the employer is instructed to keep this; not
to send it to the tax office. In California this is the Franchise
Tax board, where they are charged with collecting guess what? "Resident
Income Tax," i.e., from resident aliens, residents of the
State, not of California, California Republic, or California state.

Let me review. A resident of and in the
territorial U.S. (usually the District of Columbia) includes
everyone who is a non-visitor, i.e., who intends to remain for an
extended length of time. That could be nonresident aliens from the
states, who remain over 183 days in a given tax year; resident
aliens, like Englishmen; and, of course, the citizens who live
there. The first two categories are alien, because they are
domiciled elsewhere. After a year, say, the Citizen of California
who returns to his/her state, reverts back to being a
nonresident alien,
with respect to the District United States. This is because s/he is
domiciled (has his/her legal tax home) in California. S/he is
alien to the federal
zone, and no longer
resident
there. The Englishman remains a resident alien, no matter where he
lives and works in America whether the federal zone or the 50
states. For, he is domiciled in England, and resident in America.

Now I will move on to some pertinent IRC and
CFR sections relating to nonresident aliens. This is quite
important, of course, and is the reason why one submits a
Form W-8
to one s employer (not the IRS). This should be obvious from 26 C.F.R.
"31.3401(a)(6)-1(b), which said:

Remuneration paid to a nonresident alien individual for
services performed outside the [federal] United States is
excepted from wages
and hence is not
subject to withholding. (Emphasis added.)

Or, from the l954 IRC section 6012:

(a) GENERAL RULE Returns with respect to income taxes under
Subtitle A (5) nonresident alien individuals not subject to
the tax imposed by 871 may be
exempted from the requirements of making returns
(Emphasis added.)

Again, in
26 C.F.R. §1.871-7Taxation of nonresident alien individuals not
engaged in trade or business [in the District U.S.]:

The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense
includes [is restricted to see below]any Territory under
the [complete]sovereignty of the [federal] United States

Therefore, a state Citizen would be alien to that
jurisdiction. And, not living in a federal zone, would be
nonresident thereto. Therefore,
unless they claimed otherwise, as most do,
practically every American, in the 50 states, not working for the
government (federal, State, or municipal) would be a nonresident
alien, by default. For such state Citizens do not fall under the
definition in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c), which states that

every person born or naturalized in the [territorial] United
States and [completely] subject to its jurisdiction is a [U.S.]
citizen.

Also, Section 2(d) of the IRC Nonresident aliens is quite
clear and concise:

In the case of a nonresident alien individual, the taxes
imposed by sections 1 [individual graduated income tax] and 55
[alternative minimum tax] shall apply only as provided by
section 871 or 877. (Emphasis added.)

Section 871(a) is for nonresident aliens who have a 30% tax
imposed upon earnings received from sources
within the
[federal]
U.S. Section 871(b) deals with income effectively connected
with a trade or business [as a federal government employee] within
the [federal] U.S., or for one having a corporate office there,
for which the regular Subtitle A graduated tax is imposed.
Section 877, Expatriation to avoid tax, is of
little relevance.

Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) or (C) [which have to
do with tax liabilities of nonresident aliens and foreign
corporations with offices
within
the federal zone] no income, gain or loss from sources
without [outside] the [federal] United States [e.g., in the
union states] shall be treated as effectively connected with the
conduct of a trade or business within the United States.
(Emphasis added.)

Being a nonresident alien, of course, also affects withholding
Subtitle C. It states in
26 U.S.C. §3401(a) Wages:

(a) For the purpose of this chapter, the term wages
means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public
official) for services performed by an employee to his employer
except that
such term shall not include remuneration paid (6) for such
services, performed by a nonresident alien individual
(Emphasis added.)

It is absolutely crucial to understand the meaning of the term of
art wages. Like almost everything else in the code, it is
spelled out, if one looks for it with some exceptions, as was seen
with the phrase several States. But, here, it is out in plain sight.
In
26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)Employee it states:

the term [employee] includes [only] officers and
employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a
[federal] State, Territory, Puerto Rico or any political
subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency
or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term
"employee" also includes
an officer of a [domestic, i.e., federal District] corporation."
(Emphasis added.)

Of course, they try to confuse and confound matters by using the
unmodified word of art State. But, I hope I have adequately
clarified that, above.
Wages, are earnings paid to federal government employees
though the term Federal personnel, as defined at
5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(13), is a more comprehensive category. These are
those whom federal law applies to outside the federal zone, in the
matter of wages, as in all other matters:

the term Federal personnel means officers and employees of
the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed
services (including members of the Reserve Components),
individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement
benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the
United States (including survivor benefits).

Wages are not compensation paid for the labor of a nonresident
alien. This is further stressed in
26 C.F.R. §1.1441-3Exceptions and rules of special application,
where it states:

(a)Income from sources
without
[outside]
the [federal] United States. to the extent that items
of income constitute gross income from sources without
the [District] United States, they are not subject to
withholding. (Emphasis added.)

No delving into the meaning of the term state
or State would be complete without mention of the Buck Act. Congress
passed the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" (4 U.S.C. 111) with the
purpose of taxing all federal and State employees, as well as those
living and working in the federal zone. It became, thereby,
municipal law for D.C. and the territories, etc. The next year the
government pulled what many believe to be one of its most devious
ploys: It passed the Buck Act (4 U.S.C. 104-110), Section 110(e) of
which reads:

The term Federal area means any LANDS OR PREMISES held
or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any
department, establishment, or agency of the United States;
and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located
within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to
be a Federal area located within such State. (Emphasis added.)

This one sentence was the tinder box that
ignited a much ballyhooed controversy about what the federal
government could do and has done i.e., the intent and meaning of the
Act. Richard McDonald and Paul Mitchell have propounded the view
that this Act sanctions the creation of Federal areas within any
State, such as has been done by the Social Security Board and the
U.S. Postal Service, with their 2-letter designations for each
State, like CA.

I don t read this from the Buck Act,
personally. The ZIP code areas, for example, do refer to federal
areas not however, to "Federal
areas" of the Buck Act. I can certainly understand why a real
stickler would balk at accepting mail at such an address, if s/he
didn't want to admit to living in a federal area. But, firstly, it
is certain that this is not a sufficient reason for obligating
anyone to file a tax return. And, secondly, the Buck Act was simply
not needed to establish such areas, and others. Every alphabet soup
agency utilizes areas across the country, but they have no
relationship to any "lands
or premises" held by the federal government. I believe it
is simply an administrative decision to form these areas. If I am
wrong, then I must be shown proof in the few brief paragraphs of
this short and simple Act.

I have used the term includes many
times, and since it is impossible to interpret the U.S.C. correctly
without a proper understanding of this term, I will give some
detailed attention to it s definition and usage in legal writings. I
will start by focusing on resident, as found in the laws of
the STATE OF CALIFORNIA although I am confident that only
insignificant details will vary from corporate State to corporate
State.

For example, in my case, I am not now, and
never have been, a resident of the corporate STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, because this term of art refers to one who lives on any
federal territory located within the borders of California, such as
a military base.

The word resident is a term of art that
has a special meaning in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA CODE (which is how
it is often written). The General Provisions of this Code,
Section 17014, defines resident, in pertinent part, as:

Every individual who is in this state
for other than a temporary or transitory purpose.

Every individual domiciled in this state
who is outside the state for a temporary or transitory
purpose. (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, the above definition of resident
is deceptive, because it must be understood that the phrase in
this state in (1) and (2), is another term of art, which has a
special meaning that is precisely defined in the Code s General
Provisions, Section 6017, and Assessments Section 11205:

In this State or in the State means
within the exterior
limits of the State of California and includes [is
limited to] all territory within these limits owned by or ceded
to the United States of America. (Emphasis added.)

(As shown above, this use of United States
of America is a constitutionally unauthorized usage, sometimes
employed by the corporate federal United States, misleadingly to
designate itself, or one of its agencies. It must not be
confused with the original meaning of that phrase, as found in the
Declaration of Independence, and Article I of the still valid
Articles of Confederation: "The title of this confederacy shall be
The United States of America." which is the name of the delegating authority,
not that agency
[the United States ] to
which
the U.S. Constitution later delegated specific limited powers within
the states, at 1:8, or plenary powers within the federal zone, at
4:3:2.)

The above definition of in this state still
does not clarify the meaning of the term resident, however, until
the special meaning of yet another painted word, includes, is
understood.

While it would be easy to assume that the above
definition means "all land within the borders of California, and does not exclude
federal territory therein," the proper interpretation is
fundamentally and crucially different! What is really meant, is that
land in this State refers
only
to "territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United
States of America" (i.e., an agency of the corporate federal
U.S. government).

I believe that it is beyond contention that the
use of includes is meant to mislead and deceive. The law writers
prove themselves to be able to be completely unambiguous when a
forthright statement is called for as
26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(5) or
4612(a)(4), quoted in section 6, above. However, the correct
interpretation of this term, as used in
all corporate State and federal codes and regulations,
has been made quite clear, if one probes deep enough.

For instance, if one goes back to the January
1, 1961 revision of Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations, at Section
170.59, it states:

Includes and including shall not be deemed to exclude things
other than those enumerated [i.e., by the example given by the
class example] which
are in the same general class." (Emphasis added.)

The
example represents the class and that class only! Which
is to say, if Puerto Rico is given as a class example, this would
indicate that no union state, being party to the Constitution, could
be referred to, since Puerto Rico is not yet, at least, a union
state.

As the Supreme Court has put forth several
times, the statutes must be assumed to be written exactingly, and,
therefore, taken to mean precisely what they say. (This will be
painfully obvious, when we read Public Law 86-624, below.) So, no
meaning can be imputed into their words, other than specifically
what is written. Therefore,
what is excluded must be
interpreted to mean that it was intended to be excluded.

This revision of 1961, is where this essential
qualification of "includes" was introduced, although this concept
has been accepted in law for millennia. For example, in the maxims:
the Ejusdem generis rule (of the same kind, class, or
nature), as well as Noscitur a sociis (it is known by its
associates) and Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the
inclusion of one is the exclusion of another).

It is interesting, although not unexpected or
important, that it was watered down in the most recent revisions,
for the older version still has legal force and effect. Now, the
code tries to disguise things by saying, in
26 U.S.C. §7701(c) Includes and Including:

The terms includes and including when used in a definition
contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other
things otherwise within the
meaning of the term defined."

This, of course, is a desperate effort which, for the most part
has succeeded! to obfuscate the earlier phrasing: "which are in the
same general class." But, for anyone with half a mind, it is seen to
be just the same old smoke and mirrors.

"The determining word is, of course the word 'including.' It
may have the sense of addition, [221 U.S. 452,
465]
as we have seen, and of 'also;' but, we have also
seen, 'may merely specify particularly that which belongs to the
genus.' Hiller v. United States, 45 C. C. A. 229, 106 Fed. 73,
74. It is the participle of the word 'include,' which means,
according to the definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) 'to
confine within something; hold as in an inclosure; inclose;
contain.' (2) 'To comprise as a part, or as something incident
or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the
less; . . . the Roman Empire included many nations.'
'Including,' being a participle, is in the nature of an
adjective and is a modifier."

Even more interesting, considering its source, is Treasury
Definition
3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pages 64 and 65, where the
terms includes and including are defined as follows:

(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace (2) To enclose
within; contain; confine But granting that the word including is
a term of enlargement,
it is clear that it only performs that officeby
introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement.
It thus, and thus only,enlarges the otherwise more
limited, preceding general language The word including is
obviously used in the sense of its synonyms,
comprising; comprehending; embracing. (Emphasis
added.)

In the
Montello case, above, the U.S. Supreme Court, puts its cachet to
this view:

"...The court
[the Supreme Court of the State] also considered that the word
'including' was used as a word of enlargement, the learned court
being of opinion that such was its ordinary sense. With this we
cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the dictionaries
and cases indicate.
We may concede to 'and' the additive power attributed to it. It
gives in connection with 'including' a quality to the grant of
110,000 acres which it would not have had,-the quality of
selection from the saline lands of the state. And that such
quality would not exist unless expressly conferred we do not
understand is controverted. Indeed, it cannot be
controverted...."

Some 80 court cases have chosen the restrictive meaning of
includes, etc., such as this one last example:

Includes is a word of limitation. Where a general term in
Statute is followed by the word including the primary import of
specific words following quoted words is to indicate restriction
rather than enlargement. (Powers ex rel Dovon v. Charron R.I.,
135 A. 2nd 829)

To elucidate more clearly the 1961 definition, above:
includes and including shall not be deemed to include things not
enumerated,
unless they are in the
same general class. For instance, State, in
26 U.S.C. §7701(10): "The term State shall be construed to
include the District of Columbia " Here, "the District of Columbia,"
withoutany
doubt, is not "in the same general class," category, or genus as
Missouri or California it is a
federal
"State." The District of Columbia has a totally different
jurisdictional set up than a union state. It is under the absolute
jurisdiction of the U.S., and
the states are not. Only in the federal zone does the U.S.
have jura summi imperii, right of supreme dominion, complete
sovereignty.

For further extensive details on how the words "include" and
"including" are abused to unlawfully enlarge federal jurisdiction
within states of the Union, see::

And, just what is jurisdiction? It was defined as "the
power of a court to apply the law and to enter and enforce
judgement," in
Jones v. Brinson, (N.C.) 78 S.E. 2d 334, 337. Or, it was said
to be "the power to declare the law." (Bullington v. Angel,
220 N.C. 18) The U.S. obviously cannot do these things in a union
state. It cannot "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever," in the 50 states, as the Constitution says it can
in the federal zone:

"The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Blackmer v. United States, supra, at 437, is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained. It is based on the assumption that Congress is primarily concerned with domestic conditions."
[
Foley Brothers, Inc.
v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948) (Emphasis added.)]

"Act of Congress includes [is restricted to] an act of Congress
locally applicable
to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in
a [federal] territory or in an insular [federal] possession."
[
Rule 54(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(Emphasis added.)]

"It is clearthat Congress, as a legislative body, exercises two species
of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects but
extending all over the Union; the other, an absolute, exclusive
legislative power over the District of Columbia." [Cohens v.
Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257. U.S. Supreme Court,
1821. Emphasis added.]

"[There can] be no complete [legal] code for the entire United
States [of America, i.e., the union states], because the
subjects which would be regulated by the code in the [union]
[s]tates are entirely outside
the legislative authority of Congress."
[Justice
Walter S. Cox, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia,
in a speech to the Columbia Historical Society, 12/5/1898.
Emphasis added.]

"A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the
United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was
in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same
pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate
choice of the people...A
State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts
of the United States, or from any other exterior authority,
unless in the special instances where the general Government has
power derived from the
Constitution itself."
[
Chisholm, Ex'r v. Georgia, 2
Dall. 419, 448 (1794). (Emphasis added.)]

That is, Congress can only exercise such power when carrying out
the constitutional mandates of the special
legislative jurisdiction authorized at 4:3:2, where it states that
it "shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the
territory or other Property
belonging
to the United States " (Emphasis added.)

Surely, not South Dakota! To operate there, at all, would require
general
legislative powers those 17 that are specifically and precisely set
forth at 1:8 of the U.S. Constitution and, hence, referred to as the
enumerated powers of the United States.

The term United States, as used in this title in a
territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental
and insular,
subject to the [complete] jurisdiction of the United States,
except the Canal Zone.

Having established, above, how the misleading term includes must be
interpreted in all the codes, it follows, then, incontrovertibly,
that "in this State" means those areas which are not only within
California s borders,
but are also owned by or
ceded to the corporate United States. Which means that
since they are outside of the general class, then any and all non-federal
areas like where i live are not in this state.

Therefore, the term resident,
in the Code of any
State or in the 48 U.S. titles means someone who is
in a federal territory
"within the exterior limits of [say] the State of

California" (such as the Presidio) for other than a temporary or
transitory purpose OR
ELSE CLAIMS TO BE, by declaring him/herself to be a
resident of the State (as almost everyone does).

In light of the above, one is reminded of a remark by Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832) about words of art, which he defined
interestingly:

When leading terms [as he calls them] are made to chop
and change their several significations, sometimes meaning one
thing, sometimes another, at the upshot perhaps nothing, and
this in the compass of a paragraph, one may judge what will be
the complexion of the whole context. (Emphasis added.)

I like a phrase that is not commonly encountered, and that I have
never seen used in this context: weasel word or here, perhaps,
weasel phrase. It is perfect, indeed nonpareil, for indicating the
usage of terms of art, such as United States, State, or resident. To
quote
Webster s New Collegiate Dictionary:

[fr. the weasel s reputed habit of sucking the contents out
of an egg while leaving the shell superficially intact]: a word
used in order to
evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement of
position." (Emphasis added. Brackets in original.)

Look in the General Provisions, section 6017:

In this State or in the State In this State or in the
State means within the exterior limits of the State of
California and includes [is restricted to] all territory within
these limits
owned by or ceded to the United States of America."
(Emphasis added.)

For example, if you live in the Presidio. This is repeated
verbatim in the State of California Revenue and Taxation Code,
section 11205. And, section 17018:

State State includes [is limited to] the District of
Columbia, and the possessions of the United States. (Emphasis
added.)

Or, in General Provisions, section 18:

State State means the State of California [not
California, California state, or California Republic], unless
applied to the different parts of the United States. In the
latter case, it includes [only] the District of Columbia and
the territories.

Do you get that? If reference is made to the
States of the United States,
this encompasses only D.C. and the territories. Those are the only states
of the federal corporate district U.S.! And, don t be
thrown by State meaning State of California. Reference is to the
corporate, contract, private law State. They exist side by side. The
Governor and all other s/State officials wear two hats one for when
they are involved in corporate State activities, and one for when
they are occasionally involved in common law actions. And, to really
confuse matters, there are those, like Dave Hinkson, who believe
that the corporate States are sub-corporations of the District U.S.

Of course, back in 1869, when the Court in
Washington Territory said: "A Territory is not a State, nor is the
word State used as synonymous with Territory," things were quite
different than today. (Smith v. United States, 1 Wash. T.
262.)

Remember Form 590, where one declares oneself a
resident of California? This means that then one wouldnot be a resident of
the State of California, and thereby federalized to a
status where one must pay both federal and corporate State taxes. If
the reader requires more than this for entertainment, s/he has a
higher threshold of enjoyment than I do!

It is ultimately necessary to quote
26 U.S.C. §865(g)(1)(A) and (B) in order to understand fully what
the code means by resident and nonresident :

"(A) United States resident. The term United States
resident means (i) any individual who (I) is a [federal] United
States citizen or a resident alien and does not have a tax home
(as defined in section 911(d)(3) ) in a foreign country [like
way back in Nebraska], or (II) is a nonresident alien and has a
tax home (as so defined) in the [federal] United States, and
(ii) any corporation, trust, or estate which is a United States
person (as defined in section 7701(a)(3) ). (B) Nonresident.
The term "nonresident" means any person other than a [District]
United States resident. "
(Emphasis added.)

This probably requires exegesis! First, (i)(I).
This means that to be a statutory "U.S. resident" you have to be either a
citizen of the District U.S. (i.e., D.C., the territories or
enclaves) or an alien, such as a union state Citizen or, say, a
German, not having his business location without (i.e., outside) the
District U.S. e.g., in Missouri or Germany. That is, a sovereign
state Citizen can temporarily be a "U.S. resident," for tax
purposes, that year, and not lose his state Citizen status, when he
changes his tax home back to his home state. (II) A "nonresident
alien" (i.e., someone who is neither a statutory "citizen" or
statutory "resident" of the
[corporate] U.S., as defined in
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B), above) can also be a statutory "U.S. resident" if
and when his tax home is in the District U.S. And (B) "nonresident"
means just what the forgoing code section also said someone who is
not a District U.S. resident, such as a state Citizen or a
non-immigrant Japanese no matter where s/he is living.

A state Citizen/nonresident alien, however,
can owe "income tax"
to the federal government, without having his tax home there. The
IRC, at section
872(a) General rule, states:

In the case of a nonresident alien individual
gross income
includes
only (1) gross income which is
derived from sources within the [District] United States
and which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a
trade or business within the [federal] United States [like
interest on government bonds], and (2) gross income which is
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business
within the [corporate] United States." (Emphasis added.)

Determination of taxable income. In determining
taxable income gross income includes only gross income which is
effectively connected with the conduct of a "trade or business,"
within the [District] United States.

Incidentally, one reads in
26 U.S.C. §7701 (a)(26): "Trade or business. The term trade
or business includes [i.e., is restricted to] the performance of the
functions of a public office" i.e., in a general sense, anyone
working for the government.

By extension, one can see that for a District
U.S. citizen the situation is just the reverse of that of a state
Citizen. That is, if a federal statutory "U.S. citizen" franchisee earns remuneration from
without the District U.S., in one of the 50 foreign countries
called union states, then that is correctly termed "foreign
earned income," which requires
Form 2555
titled just that, Foreign Earned Income. This, of course, is
almost universally misinterpreted, because of the intentionally
misleading ambiguity of the terms of art State and United States .

This is made crystal clear, however, in the
Instructions for
Form 2555:

Foreign Country. A foreign country is any territory
(including the air space, territorial waters, seabed, and
subsoil) under the sovereignty
of a government other than the United States [like
Iowa or Illinois]. It does not include the U.S. possessions or
territories. (Emphasis added.)

Volume 20 of Corpus Juris Secundum 1785, states
that the United States is a foreign Corporation with respect to a
State. Leaving aside numerous case cites, one can go to the code
itself
28 U.S.C. §297:

Assignment of judges to courts of the freely associated
compact states (b) The Congress consents to the acceptance
and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from
the COUNTRIES
referred to in subsection (a) , [where it indicates that they
are speaking of] the
freely associated compact [union] states. (Emphasis
added. Other similar quotes will be found at the end of this
paper.)

Lastly, Black s Law Dictionary, 6th edition,
defines Foreign state as "A foreign country or nation. The several
United States are considered foreign to each other except as regards
their relations as common members of the Union."

Americans, especially, when they have to do with the law, must
learn to think internationally. As well put in 16 Am Jur 2d, art.
Conflict of Laws, 2:

Private international law assumes a more important aspect in
the United States than elsewhere, for the reason that the
several states, although united under the same sovereign
authority and governed by the same laws for all national
purposes embraced by the Federal Constitution, are otherwise, at
least
so far as private
international law is concerned, in the same relation as foreign
countries. The great majority of questions of private
international law are therefore subject to the same rules when
they arise between two states of the Union as
when they arise between two foreign countries (Emphasis
added.)

In the words of the Rhode Island Supreme Court:

In the sense of public international law, the several states
of the union are neither foreign to the United States nor are
they foreign to each other. But such is not the case in the
field of private international law .That it is the settled view
of the [United States] Supreme Court that, on questions of private
international law, the states are foreign to the United States
would seem to be clear from the decision in State of
Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265. Robinson v.
Norato, 71 R.I. 25, 643 A 2d 467 (1945). (Emphasis added.)

To clarify:

Public international law deals with the authority the federal
government has been granted to represent American interests
OUTSIDE of American society. Private international law deals
with the authority the federal government has WITHIN American
society. The U.S. Constitution grants to the federal government
the exclusive right to represent American interests to nations
outside American society. But there is no such authority granted
to the federal government when dealing with the states of the
Union and the people who live therein. Thus, the United States
has no inherent legislative jurisdiction within the states of
the Union except for those things that have been specifically
delegated to the United States government in the U.S.
Constitution. Remember, the United States government is a
federal government with limited authority, not a national
government (From an email transmission by Gerald Brown,
2/2/2000)

I should point out that although we are all "tax payers", only some
are "taxpayers". The tax payer pays countless taxes every day dozens
on a loaf of bread, alone, as well as excise and sales tax on
liquor, etc. But a statutory "taxpayer", as defined in the IRC, at
7701(a)(14), is "any person subject to any internal
revenue tax," and again at §1313(b):

"Notwithstanding section
7701(a)(14), the term taxpayer means any person subject
to
a tax under the applicable revenue law."

(I never understood the need or point of "notwithstanding ")

And, concerning this, it is very important to note well the words
of the decision in Economy Plumbing Co. v. U.S., 470 F 2d
585:

"Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and
can obtain no benefit by following procedures prescribed for
taxpayers." (At 589. Emphasis added.)

"The term taxpayer in this opinion is used in the strict or
narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means
a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own
personal income tax. A nontaxpayer
is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of
a taxpayer." (At 590, emphasis added.)

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection.
They relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers." (At
589, emphasis mine. I find it amusing that "nontaxpayer" is
red-flagged by my spellchecker. that's how brainwashed we are.)

Back to
Form 2555
Foreign earned income. A statutory "U.S. person" per 26
U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) i.e., a statutory "citizen" or
"resident" of the "United States" as well as a domestic (i.e.,
District U.S.) partnership, corporation, estate, or trust residing and working in, say, New Mexico,
certainly has income earned outside his domicile/legal tax home in
the federal zone. It is, therefore, foreign earned income, and
requires the filing of
Form 2555. A state Citizen of New Mexico would owe nothing on
his earnings from within his/her state. Only if he received
remuneration from D.C. or some other tax treaty country. Not every
country it must be tied in with the District U.S. tax laws, by
tax treaty. S/he can keep what s/he earns in Nepal, because they
have no tax treaty with the U.S. Remember, that a state citizen
nonresident alien American s gross income, to be taxable, must be
derivedonly from sources within
the District U.S., or a tax treaty country, not from his state of
domicile, in Kentucky. (The requirements attending the
gross income of a statutory "U.S. citizen" are addressed in section 26.)

Let me back up. One must begin with
26 U.S.C. §6012 "Persons required to make returns of income. (a)General rule. Returns with respect to income taxes under
subtitle A shall be made by the following: " (Last
emphasis added.) This is the only place in the IRC where a filing
requirement for Subtitle A individual income tax is made reference
to.

Better yet, let s go to the regulations for
this section 1.6012-1 Individuals required to make returns of
income:

a. Individual [U.S.] citizen or resident (1) In general.
Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, an
income tax return must be filed by every individual [i.e.,
juristic person] for each taxable year beginning before January
1, 1973, during which he receives $600 or more of gross income,
and for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1972,
during which he receives $750 or more of gross income, IFsuch
individual is: (i) A citizen of the [territorial] United
States, whether residing at home [in the federal zone] or abroad
[outside the borders of the USA or in one of the 50 states],
(ii) A resident of the [territorial] United States even
though not a citizen thereof, or (iii) An alien bona fide
resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year.
(Emphasis added.)

In other words,
6012 only requires
one
of the above 3 categories of persons to file a return. If one were one
of these, subparagraph (6) would, then,
seem to apply and so
hundreds of millions of taxpayers have believed, for many decades:

(6) Form of return. Form 1040 is prescribed for general use
in making the return required under this paragraph.

This is not exactly incorrect, but it is only
part of the story.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
provided a Document Control Number of 1545-0067, with respect to
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1Tax imposed, as well as
"1.6012-0Persons required to make returns of income. If
one goes to the cross tables at
26 C.F.R. §1.602.101, where the appropriate form is matched to
every section in the IRC that requires one, s/he will find that the
only form required and approved by the OMB is not
Form 1040,
butForm 2555Foreign earned income. However, it does specify thereon:
"Attach to Form 1040" (although a Form W-2 may be used, instead). Form 1040 is merely a
worksheet and supplemental to Form 2555. So, it is,
indeed, for "use in making the return," as stated above. It is,
however, not usually used exclusively only collaterally, with Form
2555. And, when so used, it is for the purpose of
claiming a refund, certain credits or deductions. If no such
deductions are claimed, then the
Form 2555
is used alone which explains why a Form W-2 can replace
Form 1040.

One can see in
26 C.F.R. §1.602.101, above, that immediately following
Section 1.1-1 comes
Section 1.23-5, whose OMB Document Control Number, 1545-0074,
just happens to require Form 1040! And, this is to be used for the
very important purpose of obtaining a tax credit, through
"[c]ertification that an item meets the definition of an
energy-conserving component or renewable energy source property."
And, there are a number of other places in the cross tables where
Form 1040 is exclusively paired to a given section in the IRC that
are almost all for the obtaining of a credit, refund, or deduction
not to discharge a tax liability with the exception of its use by
federal employees for a certain purpose (see
4 U.S.C. §111), and by fiduciaries of nonresident aliens, to be
mentioned shortly.

To repeat, as regards filing a return for
Subtitle A tax, both of
these forms must be filed together that is, if one is
a federal statutory "citizen" franchisee and wants deductions on income earned without
(outside) the District United States. Indeed, there isn t even a
place to affix one s signature on
Form 2555, although it does, understandably, request one s
social security number, and "Name shown on Form 1040," or, of
course, Form W-2, if one is claiming no deductions.

As I have indicated, however, Form 1040, can be
used alone. For example, the lately oft-quoted Treasury Decision
(TD) 2313, of March 21, 1916, states that Form 1040 is only to be
used by
FIDUCIARIES of
nonresident aliens (NOT by the nonresident aliens
themselves,
back in Minnesota), to report and pay any tax on "income from
property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the
[District] United States. received by them in behalf of
their nonresident alien principals." (See the complete document in
the Appendix.) That is, it is to be used by the
withholding agents
to report the income of the foreign (nonresident alien) principals
e.g., someone living and working in Arizona.

Back to
Form 2555.
For the last couple of years, a few hip taxpayers have complied with
the above requirement, and have received refunds of up to the
statutory yearly deduction of $74,000, plus a generous housing
allowance. Recently, however the IRS is usually stalling, claiming
that the filing of a Form 2555 constitutes a frivolous return, and
imposing a $500 frivolous penalty charge which is simple and certain
to defeat, if one knows exactly how to proceed.

As a consequence, in 1995 they simply took
mention of
Form 2555
out of the cross tables! It is still the law, you just can t
see it, in recent yearly revisions! They say in response to queries,
that its presence was too confusing!! I call it really
confusing,
not to tell the whole country what form to submit, in order to
pay one s individual income tax !

In the many times that I have seen this
mentioned, I have never
witnessed it correctly interpreted. A typical retort is to ask where
in the code or the IRM is there reference to Americans living and
working in the U.S., as opposed to foreign countries. It you have
read everything in this paper, you will instantly understand that
the outlined duties are correctly defined and absolutely
constitutional. As you know, if you file a Form 1040, you are
swearing to being a District "U.S. citizen", and since you live in a
foreign country (Georgia), you are, therefore, their legitimate
meat. Actually, this quote validates what I have been saying. It
may, indeed, be an embarrassment to the IRS, but not for the reasons
that other people believe. It is because it verifies the fact that
most taxpayers are foreigners to the District United States.
And, note, by the way, that the CID works out of the
International
Office, in Philadelphia for, after all, it is concerned with
collection from what we ve seen private international law considers
to be 50 foreign countries!

Next, I want to show why understanding the
vital role of regulations is crucial in determining to whom the
codes apply as a background to speaking briefly of the keystone
Sections 61 and 63 of the IRC.

.any such matter which imposes an obligation and which is not
so published or incorporated by reference will not adversely
change or affect a person s rights. (Emphasis added.)

One could also reference, among others, 25 C.F.R.
Part 601. But the strongest and most often quoted authority is at
44 U.S.C. §1505(a) and
1507, which are part of the Federal Register Act, where it
clearly says that if something is required to be published in the
FR, and it isn t, then
the individual involved cannot be adversely affected, and is held
harmless. This has been upheld in several court cases.

Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the
issues raised by the parties, we think it important
to note [when have you seen that before?] that the
Act s civil and criminal penalties attach only upon
violation of regulations promulgated by the
Secretary; if the Secretary
were to do nothing,
the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.
(Emphasis added.)

IRC Sections 61 and 63 are two of the most important in the Code.
In
26 U.S.C. §63(a), it defines "taxable income," for Subtitle
A Income taxes, as meaning "gross income minus the deductions
allowed " This is purportedly clarified by Section 61, which reads:

Gross income defined. (a)General
definition.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income
means all income from whatever source derived "

As the Supreme Court said in the California
Banker s Assoc. case just above, I think it important to note that
these sections
lack the required
implementing regulations, as determined by referencing the
Parallel Table of Statutory Authorities and Rules in the Index
volume of the CFR. This stands to reason, of course, since, as has
been shown, there have been, and can be,
no constitutionally legitimate internal revenue districts
established in the 50 states, pursuant to
26 U.S.C. §7621 and E.O. #10289, and, therefore, no such
publication is necessary.

Since there are NO Part 1
(Income taxes) or Part 31 (Employment Tax) regulations for
26 U.S.C. §63Taxable income defined, it is limited to
determining taxable income only for such as government employees (5
USC §301); those residing and working within the federal zone;
nonresident aliens and foreign corporations (back in Wyoming)
deriving gross income from within the District U.S.; and those under
U.S. maritime jurisdiction.

Without any means to determine taxable income, which is
the ultimate object of any tax collection activity, there is little
point in pursuing any other matter! However, just for your general
delectation, you might find it of interest that in
26 C.F.R. §1.62-1, which defines adjusted gross income, we
find that since subsections (a) and (b) are reserved, one must rely
on 1.62-1T for the only
definition of gross income. And, since T means temporary
and temporary regulations have
no legal force and effect, it is as if
62 had been expunged from the code. Indeed, for all intents and
purposes it has; it s just still printed there.

This procedure is far from unusual, since, for
example, every
penalty and enforcement section in Subtitle F Procedure and
Administration
(where is found the feared
7203 Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay
tax)has either no implementing regulations at all or else has been
taken over by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Title 27
and, thus, has zero
connection
to Subtitle A Income Taxes or Subtitle C Employment Tax.
Of course, people go to prison for not knowing and availing
themselves of this knowledge. Cases where the would-be taxpayer is
known to know this are apparently dismissed before they reach court.
Speak of embarrassing!!

I enjoy researching such matters. But, I would
like to remind you that the question of whether or not one has gross
income has pertinence only if one is
subject to and liable for payment of income tax, in the first
place! For what conceivable
relevance could the precise definition of income or gross income
have for someone not so subject and liable?! Arguing that
one has none of this ill-defined stuff called income implies that if
you did, then you believe that you would be subject to and liable
for the payment of income tax.

Such a belief, which is shared by most
taxpayers, stems from the assumption that
earned property is
the subject of income tax.Though both the House
Congressional Record and the Supreme Court have decimated this
position:

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax
with respect to certain activities and privileges
which is
measured by reference to the income which they produce.
The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for
determining the amount of tax. House Congressional Record,
3-27-43, page 2580. (Emphasis added.)

Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commodities within a country, upon licenses to
pursue certain occupations [like working for the federal
government], and upon
corporate privileges."
Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680. (Flint
v. Stone Tracy Co.,
220 U.S. 107, at 151 (1911)). (Emphasis added.)

And, they go on to say, "the element of demand is lacking. If
business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable."
(loc cit, at 151-152. Emphasis added.)

A recent email-list communication from Dave Champion makes an
exceedingly interesting observation about the courts approach to the
idea of income tax being an excise tax. After reading a great number
of tax cases, he found that:

In every case in which the court rules that the tax is an
excise, the court NEVER mentions citizenship and the defendant
is always a Citizen of one of the states of the Union. However,
in EVERY case where a federal court has ruled that the income
tax is a direct tax without apportionment, the court ALWAYS
adds,..."upon a citizen of the United States". (" Excise for
Citizen of States of the Union , Direct Tax for Citizen of the
United States ?" 4/2/00.)

In other words,
direct taxation, which is unconstitutional sans apportionment, is
only possible for federal statutory "citizen/subjects" domiciled on
federal territory and therefore subject to the civil franchise "trade
or business" contract that implements the tax. While the
court only imposes a tax on state Citizens by treating it as a
privilege or excise tax, and
without calling the defendant a U.S. citizen. This makes
perfect sense, and is in harmony with what I have been saying.

A few words on claiming and establishing one s true status
which is defined as

"[a] legal personal relationship, not temporary
in its nature nor terminable at the mere will of the parties."
[Black s Law Dictionary, 6th edition. Emphasis
added.)]

State Citizenship is a status not created by either the
corporate State or the common law state, but is a natural common law
birthright.

The right to such a determination is also supported by an
international treaty, to which the United States is a party:

International covenant on civil and political rights

Article 1 All peoples have the right of self-determination.
By virtue of that right they freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development
[U.N.T.S. No. 14668, vol. 999, p. 171 (1976)]

To maintain one's status requires an ongoing effort. For it can
all too easily be relinquished, as most have done. Ben Franklin
said:

"When men make sheep of themselves, the wolves will eat them."

For example, I would venture that in almost all states (I know of
at least one exception and it s not California), one cannot register
as a qualified elector (voter) without certifying, under penalty of
perjury, that s/he is a federal citizen. Someone told me that they
had tried to register, stipulating that they were a de jure state
Citizen, and therefore, a Citizen of the United States of America
but not a statutory "citizen of the United States" per 8 U.S.C.
§1401. He was not permitted to
register. Although he pursued the matter to the Secretary of State,
he received no explanation. The reason is that if the
Secretary of State told the truth on the record, their FRAUD would
have to end instantly, so they protect the truth with silence and
lies.

"The 'Truth' about income taxes is so precious
to the U.S. government that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard
of lies."
[Family Guardian Fellowship]

Far from being a birthright, everyone agrees that the
statutory "citizen of the United States" found in 8 U.S.C. §1401 is
was and is a statutory creation of congress that implements a
protection franchise tied to domicile on federal territory in the
statutory but not constitutional "United States", consisting of
federal territory that subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
Congress. Originating from a corporation, called the United States, s/he is
a fiction, just as is the "U.S." not a wo/man on the land. S/he is an
abstraction, defined into being at the changing whim of the United
States Congress, of which s/he is a franchisee and subject. As such,
s/he is assigned statutory privileges, for s/he has no inherent, unalienable
rights.
S/he has a status
comparable to a green card resident alien.

For example, it has been ruled more than once that the first 10
Articles of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States the
so-called Bill of Rights do not apply to statutory "U.S. citizens"
under 8 U.S.C. §. (They
have their own, found in
Title 48,
§1421b "Bill of rights!!" without the 10th
Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S., together with many other
changes.However, being in the code, and therefore statutory and
alterable, I believe that it would be more correctly termed a Bill
of Privileges. )

The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th
Amendment protects very few rights because it neither
incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights
of individualcitizens. Instead, this provision protects only those
rights peculiar to
being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect
those rights which relate to state citizenship.
[Jones v. Temmer
829 F. Supp. 1226 (Emphasis added.)]

The 14th Amendment starts off: "All persons " because
that's who it addresses, Constitutional but not statutory "persons",
who are people domiciled within states of the Union and outside the
civil jurisdiction of Congress. A statutory "person" under
acts of Congress, on the other hand, is an artificial entity, to which statutory law
applies
whether it be in the guise of a corporation or a human being. All
the codes refer almost exclusively to these statutory but not
Constitutional "persons". Only one time,
in Title 26, for instance, is a legally necessary exception made
when having to do with inoculations, and the phrase "human being" is
used. For details on why nearly all civil statutes regulate
and refer ONLY to government public officers and instrumentalities,
see:

It was mentioned above that the IRS records for all "taxpayers" are
stored in 126 entity modules. You will find, in the lengthy
definition of entity in Black s Law Dictionary (6th
edition), that there is no reference to, nor any indication that
this term could possibly apply to, a human being. An entity is,
in part:

[a]n organization or being that possesses separate
existence for tax purposes. Examples would be
corporations, partnerships, estates and trusts. (Emphasis
added.)

Indeed, there was a class action suit recently,
in the D.C. District Court, by several hundred people, demanding to
know why there are no Privacy Act tax records relating to them,
which, of legal necessity, could only be
personal records,
i.e. of living human beings, not entity documents, as for a
business. (For, without such records and they
never exist then
there is no legal justification even to be approached by the IRS.)
The government tax attorneys admitted, in open court, that there
wereno such records for them. But the case was defeated
on a technicality, because of a grossly incompetent attorney.

A fiction can only deal with a fiction. That is
why the corporate government does everything it can to make you
participate somehow in corporate activity. Thus, you become a
statutory "person", "individual", or "resident". In other words, a federal
statuturoy "citizen".
Only by treating you as a fictitious corporate entity and public
officer of the government and therefore government instrumentality, can they
lawfully attempt to tax
you. And, just for good measure, they impute to you drug dealing
activities in the Virgin Islands, an excise taxable activity which
also makes you a person, a juristic entity, which they can approach
in court.

As was stated, federal and State statutes apply
primarily to statutory "U.S. citizens" under 8 U.S.C. §1401. Theoretically, at least, state Citizens
need not submit to them, except where they have to do with one of
the 17 "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States " (1:8:18).

For example, note the State of California CCP
1898.
Public and private statutes defined states that

Statutes are public and private. A private statute is one
which concerns only
designated individuals, and affects only their
private rights.
All other statutes
are public, in which are included statutes creating or affecting
corporations.
[Emphasis added. Notice how it always seems to come back to
corporations.]

Interestingly and importantly, another
restriction is that such fictional creations as statutory "U.S. citizens" cannot
invoke the common law Constitution of the state wherein they reside
e.g., in California, the original one, of 1849, rather than the
corporate statutory law substitute, of 1879, as amended which has
not replaced it. For
the 14th Amendment operates within admiralty
jurisdiction, i.e., civil law, not common law.

For example, in California Republic the
Constitution (1:11)
provides state Citizens with a writ of habeas corpus. In 1872,
however, it enacted in the
Penal Code
(Title 12, Chapter 12, Section 1473) a
statutory writ of
habeas corpus for other persons, who could not avail themselves of
the former,
because it operated under
common law.

The main thing to remember is that de jure
constitutional "Citizens" or "citziens of the United States", as well as the 200 plus million self-proclaimed
statutory "U.S. citizens",
owe their main allegiance
to Uncle Sam. They are merely strangers, aliens, residing in
their chosen States. Since the time the federal government was
infused with unconstitutional powers by Lincoln, the states have
become ever weaker. They merely act as "baby sitters," as Dave
Champion puts it, for these statutory "U.S. citizen" franchisees,
"tax consumers", and socialist government dependents.

Having just completed the above paper, it
occurred to me that it might be useful to summarize some of the main
points covered, which go to prove that the usual interpretation of
the Internal Revenue Code both by the general public and probably a
majority of researchers in the Patriot Movement is not correct when
it takes the term "United States", as used therein, to mean the whole
nation, and the term "U.S. citizen", to refer to every American.
Beliefs, as I have shown, which the government has done everything
in its power to foster.

In my understanding, each of the twenty-one
points, selected below, is prima facie evidence that the IRC does
not refer to the 50 union states when employing the term United
States unless specifically stating that it is onlydoing
soin that particular instance.

I have tried to make them somewhat
self-contained, in the event that they were to be read first. A fair
rebuttal, however, would have be of the full exposition of each
position, and not of the synopses below.

All emphasis is added, except of code section
titles, etc.

1. The Alaska and Hawaii Omnibus Acts, mandates
that the IRC stop referring to Alaska and Hawaii as being States,
upon their being made
states of the union. Therefore, 26 C.F.R. 31.3121(e)-1 State,
United States, and citizen [revised April 1, 1999] now reads:
"(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term State
includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as
States
" They were previously, then, federal States,
which is what the IRC said it applied to. Quod erat demonstrandum.
(QED, which was to be demonstrated. )

2. The foregoing means that the IRC admits that it no
longer applies to these two states which, however, are
constitutionally no different than the other 48 states. Therefore, the IRC applies to none of
the 50 states. QED.

3. The findings of the Legislative Counsel and
the Congressional Research Service, in reply to a request from
Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly, state that: "The term state in 26
U.S. Code 3121 (e) specifically includes
only the named territories and possessions of the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa"
not the 50 states. QED.

4.
Title 26, §7621Internal revenue districts reads: "(b)
Boundaries. [T]he President may subdivide any State or the District
of Columbia, or unite into one district two or more States." This,
of course, would be unconstitutional (4:3:1), if reference were
being made to the 50 states. So, obviously, it is not. QED.

5. Note such instructions as this: "The term United States means (but
only for purposes of this subsection and subsection (a)) the fifty
States
and the District of Columbia." (Hawaii Omnibus Act, Section
29(d)(3).) Or this, from the Alaska Omnibus Act 14(d)(2):

"and by
striking out continental United States in clause (ii) of such
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof
United States (which for purposes of this sentence and the next
sentence means the fifty States and the district of Columbia)."

In the middle of a paragraph, then, we are told that the U.S.
means the 50 States but, only for 2 sentences!
On other occasions it doesn t. QED.

6. The United States District Court case
Burnett v. Commissioner, which held that Subtitle A taxes apply
only to Washington, D.C. and the territories. They cited
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9), the IRC s general definition of United
States, and
7701(a)(10), the definition of State, interpreting them as in
this paper. QED.

7. Only in the few instances that I mention in
this paper is it stated that the term " United States
means the 50 States
" occasions which, unlike
all others, clearly and obviously call for application to the
whole nation. And, only on these occasions, incidentally, is the
term means used, rather than the term includes.

8. The January 1, 1961, revision of Title
26 C.F.R. §170.59 states: " Includes and including shall not be
deemed to exclude things other than those enumerated [i.e., by the
example given by the class example] which are in the SAME
GENERAL CLASS." Or, as TD 3980 (1927) puts it: "by
introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement."
With the above in mind, look at the IRC s general definition of
State at
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10): "The term State shall be construed to
include the District of Columbia " Since the District of Columbia
manifestly and incontestably can not be considered as being pari
causa (on an equal footing and with equivalent rights) with the
50 states, it must, therefore, be a
federal State. Being in a category separate from the union
states, this definition, then, cannot be expanded to include them.
QED.

9. Therefore, when
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) United States says that this term
"includes only the States and the District of Columbia," the term
States must, perforce, mean the federal States. For, it cannot be
making reference to the union states, as established, above. QED.
(Most Americans would not guess that there are, or even could be,
such things as federal States. But, Black s Law Dictionary, 6th
edition, clears this up, in the article State. It differentiates two
kinds. First, it designates: "The section of territory occupied by
one of the United States." But, also, it refers to federal States:
"Any [S]tate of the [District] United States, [comma,
that means, here, which is comprised of the following ] the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or
possession
subject to the legislative
authority of the United States [and, therefore, not a union
state]. Uniform Probate Code, 1-201(40)." (Emphasis added.) I deal
with and document federal States not infrequently, in the instant
paper.)

10.
Title 28, §1746, has two jurats: "(1) If executed without
(outside) the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or
state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that
the foregoing is true and correct " and "(2) If executed within the
United States, its
territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare (or
certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct " Note also that they left out United
States in the second oath, after including the United States of
America in the first one. Was this to avoid people questioning what
the difference between them was? Nevertheless, the point remains
that there is, here, a United States of America designated as being
"without (outside)"
the United States. QED.

11. With three exceptions, noted in the paper,
the use of several States misleadingly implies that reference is
being made to the union states. A perfect example of this is found
in the Hawaii Omnibus Act: Sec. 10. Section 2 of the Act of
September 2, 1937 (50 Stat. 917), as amended, is further amended by
striking out the words ;
and the term "State" shall be construed to mean and include the
several States and the Territory of Hawaii ." So, before
Hawaii became a union state it was on a par with the several States
meaning that they must have been federal States. For a Territory
could never be termed a State, in the same sense as Nebraska. QED.

12. It is instructive to follow the
transmogrification of the general definition of State, presently
found at
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10). (Please excuse the long word, but it seems
to fit the bill like no other. Webster s New Collegiate
Dictionary
defines it as "to change or alter greatly and often with grotesque
or humorous effect." You be the judge.) In 1873, its forerunner
stated that it "shall be construed to include the Territories and
the District of Columbia " When Alaska was admitted to the union, in
1959,
7701(a)(10) State was amended by striking out
"Territories and substituting "Territory of Hawaii," the only
remaining incorporated Territory. A few months later, when Hawaii
was admitted to statehood, this was amended by striking out "the
Territory of Hawaii and." So now we simply have: "The term State
shall be construed to include the District of Columbia " Patently, a
federal State. QED. And, incidentally, this further substantiates
and confirms the correct interpretation of the term includes, for
these cases it can be read in no other way than as being a term of
restriction.

13. In section 7 of this paper I quote an
alcohol and tobacco tax act, of 1868, which reads: " and the
word State to mean and
include a Territory and District of Columbia." So, here
we have the federal States referred to openly and unmistakably.
Furthermore, mean and include are
equated, which
makes include restrictive. This is bolstered in
12 U.S.C. §202Definitions where it says: "the term State
means any State, [comma,
that means, here, which is comprised of the following ] Territory,
or possession of [i.e., belonging to] the [District] United States "
State, here, has to unquestionably indicate a federal State, because
of the other sample examples, which are totally distinct from a
union state and, therefore, cannot be in the same list with it. QED.

14.
Title 28, §5 United States definedreads: "The term
United States, as used in this title in a territorial sense,
includes all places and waters, continental and insular,
subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, except the Canal Zone." Jurisdiction,
here, is short for complete or exclusive jurisdiction, as adequately
documented in the instant paper. As it s stated in the McCuller
case: "land acquired for the United States and
under its exclusive jurisdiction." See point 19 for
more documentation of the fact that legislative jurisdiction means complete
jurisdiction. QED.

15. It is more than noteworthy that lacking any
statutory or regulatory authority in the 50 states, the IRS, BATF,
and other alphabet soup agencies,
can be required by law
to apply for permission to enter these states, as registered foreign agents,
pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. For
they are operating under international law, not under the general,
plenary powers of 4:3:2 of the U.S. Constitution, as would be the
case were they in the federal zone, but rather under the
specifically authorized enumerated special powers of 1:8. Does this
seem like something that could happen in a single income tax
jurisdiction? And look at Wyoming Sheriff Dave Mattis, who
established in court that he had the legal and constitutional right
to retain IRS agents in custody for operating in his county without
his permission and had done so. QED. (See section 11 for details.)

16. The Alaska Omnibus Act 22 makes a very
significant statement in subsection (b): "Section 4262(c)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (definition of continental United
States ) is amended to read as follows: (1) The continental United
States. The term "continental United States"
means
the District of Columbia and
the States other than
Alaska. " So, now
that Alaska has become a union state it is no longer included in the
definition of the "continental United States" though, by
implication, the
islands of Hawaii
still are. Code definitions, as you know, can mean anything. QED.

17. Somewhat similarly, the Hawaii Omnibus Act
45, calls for "striking out the words for the purchase within the
continental limits of the United States of any typewriting machines
and inserting in lieu thereof for the purchase within the States of
the Union and the District of Columbia of any typewriting machines
." For, such machines were bought from both of these new union
states, when they were Territories, and, therefore, part of the
continental United States. Now, as union states they are no longer
part of the territorial District United States. QED.

18. I quote the Supreme Court (Elk v.
Wilkins), to the effect that: "the phrase subject to the
jurisdiction relates to time of birth, and one not owing allegiance
at birth
cannot become a Citizen
save by subsequent naturalization .[i.e.] COMPLETELY
subject to the political jurisdiction." Not having gone through the
5 year court process to do this, any state Citizen is able to avail
him/herself of Form W-8 Certificate of Foreign Status, which
s/he gives to her/his employer the IRS never wants to sees it. The
General Instructions read: "Use Form W-8 or a substitute form [i.e.,
a letter] containing a substantially similar statement to tell the
payer that you are a
nonresident alien
individual, foreign entity, or exempt foreign person not subject to
certain U.S. information return reporting or backup withholding
rulesFor purposes of this form, you are an "exempt
foreign person" for a calendar year in which: 1.
You are a nonresident alien
individual " Notice that the term payer is used, not
employer, which is a painted word in tax law, and would not fit in
this picture. So, where is the universally applicable income tax for
all of America and all its inhabitants? If there were only one
United States that the IRC applied to, how can one utilize a Form
W-8 to claim that s/he is an NRA, by virtue of working and living in
a union state? QED.

19. In 1957 the second volume of an extremely
important study, was published by the federal government: Report
of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction
over Federal Areas with States. A text of the Law of Legislation
Jurisdiction. It established, in painstaking detail, that
only persons residing within the legislative jurisdiction of the
U.S. Congress are residents of that jurisdiction i.e., areU.S. residents.
It is made exhaustively manifest that this Congress does not extend
the jurisdiction of its legislative umbrella beyond the
Constitutionally restricted boundaries of territories of the United
States, "belonging to" its "exclusive
sovereignty" "in
all cases whatsoever,"
e.g., the federal zone (D.C., the federal States, possessions, and
enclaves). In other words, the powers of the federal government are
limited to and specifically defined at 1:8:17 of the Constitution.
And, just as a reminder:

" Act of Congress includes [is restricted
to] an act of Congress
locally applicable
to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a
territory or in an insular possession."
[Rule 54(c), Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure]

It shouldn't surprise you to learn that the
above rule conveniently was removed from the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure in 2002 after we pointed it out, but it was not
repealed and therefore is still in effect. Hence, your
oppressors are hiding the truth to keep you enslaved, as usual.

This takes care of the question as
to whether one is a U.S. resident or not just as the preceding
paragraph goes a long way in clarifying who is a U.S. citizen. QED.

20. In the Internal Revenue Manual,
Chapter 1100, Section 1132.75, it states: "The Criminal
Investigative Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to
income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving
[District]
United States citizens
residing in foreign countries [like Missouri and New
Hampshire]
and nonresident aliens
subject to Federal income tax filing requirements [e.g.,
Oregonians having federal U.S. source income, say, from Treasury
Bonds]. If my bracketed suggestions are not on the mark, then the
CID would be acting outside its delegated authority, defined above,
and only above, in proceeding as it does. In other words, one could
then ask where there is reference to Americans living and working in
the USA. The U.S. citizen part is explained by everyone s swearing
on a Form 1040 that s/he is U.S. citizen, for tax purposes. And, I
have established that from the point of view of private
international law the union states are 50 countries foreign to one
another, as well as to their agency, the District United States.
QED.

21. Lastly, the supremely important Brushaber
case and the resultant Treasury Decision 2313, of 1916. This can be
summarized briefly, without distorting the situation. Frank
Brushaber thought that he was outside the tax forum contractus
of the federal government, due to his living and working in New York
meaning that he was not a resident in, or of, the U.S., and was
alien to its jurisdiction, i.e.,
a nonresident alien,
which this the Court never contested. His error was in
believing that the Union Pacific RR Co. was also outside this tax
forum. Consequently, in the first sentence he "enjoined the
corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the
tariff act of October 3, 1913 " He contended that the Union Pacific
was incorporated in a union state. But he overlooked the fact that
Utah was still a federal territory in 1862 and, therefore, domestic
to the District U.S. Therefore, he was obligated to pay an excise
tax (which, incidentally, is what the Brushaber case determined that
income tax was)
for the privilege of
earning money from a corporation resident in the federal zone
i.e., having been incorporated by an act of Congress. It is
exceedingly important to note that
no money he earned in his home state was exacted, or even mentioned.
What this all means is that a state Citizen, who,
therefore, is a nonresident alien with respect to the District U.S.,
has no tax liability if he has no income that is "received from
sources within the [District] United States." (26
USC §871(a)(1)) which includes, thereby, being a federal
employee. But the real jewel of this whole scenario is Treasury
Document 2313, which I have reproduced in the Appendix. It states
that it was promulgated specifically to implement the Brushaber
case. In crystal clear language, it proceeds along in perfect
harmony with the IRC today, as seen in 872 Gross Income: "In
the case of a nonresident alien individual gross income includes
only (1) gross income which is derived from sources within the
[District] United States And, of course "[a]n
individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a
citizen of the

[District] United States nor a resident of the [District] United
States." (26
USC §7701(b)(1)(B). Because this TD is referencing the Brushaber
case exclusively, it
can not be disputed, by any logical acrobatics, that Brushaber s
status i.e., living and working in a union state was accepted by the
Court as exemplifying the criteria that define a nonresident alien. Which status is exactly
like that of most Americans today. Otherwise, why was he
only obligated to pay income tax on the dividend earnings from a
District U.S. corporation,
and not on any earnings from his home state, New York.
Therefore, when 872, above, says "from sources within the United
States" it can only be interpreted to mean within the District U.S.
QED.

* * *

Perhaps a fitting endnote to this paper would
be a brief mention of a strategy that has recently been used with
success, often called the Bosset Procedure. Thurston Bell, who is
primarily responsible for its current promotion, although it has
been around for awhile, prefers to term it the Employer Refund and
Abatement Program. You can read about it on the website
Taxgate.com, which he co-founded, or on his new website,
NITE.org.

To be scathingly brief, it contends that gross
income derives only
from sources listed at
26 C.F.R. §1.861-8(f)(1), in 16 functional Operative sections.
These take up but a small page and a half, and clearly make
reference to only two categories of income. All but one section
specifies various sources of
foreign income, such as (v) "Foreign base company
income." The second category pertains to
foreigners. It is (iv) "Effectively connected taxable
income," which reads, in pertinent part:

"Nonresident alien
individuals and foreign corporations engaged in trade or
business within the United States, under sections
871(b)(1) and
882(a)(1), on taxable income which is effectively connected
with the conduct of a trade or business within the United
States." (Emphasis added.)

Bosset, and other employers have received back monies they
withheld, with interest, by claiming that they previously
misunderstood the tax regulations. They say that now they realize
that, pursuant to the CFR,
since their employees
don t earn foreign income, they have no legal right to
withhold anything.

The government cannot, of course, clarify that
foreign means any place
outside the District U.S. usually the 50 states. And, that
the
foreigners
specified, i.e. the nonresident aliens, are your average Americans
working and living in one of the 50 states as well as, of course,
the other kind of nonresident alien, like a Canadian living in
Canada and earning income in America

You must keep in mind that those using this 861 argument are
claiming to be statutory "U.S. citizens", as the term is used in Title 26
(see 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c )). The
fact that the term is misunderstood to indicate all Americans,
ironically doesn t hurt their case because the IRS cannot admit
otherwise. And, therefore, the government is left with the
redoubtable task of explaining away the foreign income bugbear. In
other words, either the IRS admits what foreign really signifies, or
U.S. citizens (as it is implying includes everyone) don t owe any
income tax, if all their income was earned, say, in Missouri, and
not in Germany.

So, then, if someone working for Ford Motor Co., in Kansas City,
insists on calling him/herself a U.S. citizen, for tax purposes,
then pursuant to this 861 argument they would have no income tax
liability. And it also
so happens, that they would have no income tax liability if they
were to realize that they were nonresident alien/Americans, since
they are making no income in the District U.S. or working for the
government. Both positions, of course, the IRS will resist. But, if
the 861 argument proves legally unassailable which I believe it will
it would be theoretically unavoidable that one of the two be
allowed. Now, in July, 00, the IRS is starting to impose frivolous
penalty charges for employees utilizing this approach. But the story
is far from over. There has not been time for the mandatory due
process hearings, where the IRS will really be put to the test
having to prove their case.

"One may be a
Citizen of a state, and yet not a citizen of the United States."
Boyd v. State of Nebraska,
143 U.S. 103, 108. And with almost identical wording:
Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; and dozens of others.
(Emphasis added.)

"[W]e find nothing which requires that a citizen of a state
must also be a citizen of the United States,
if no question of
federal rights or jurisdiction is involved." Crosse v.
Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) (Emphasis
added.)

"By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of
government, it might be correctly said that there is no such
thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage
arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from
the formation of the Confederacy has given substantial existence
to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the
States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the
United States, although
technically and
abstractly there is no such thing [in 1855, before the 14th
Amendment created them, in 1868] .To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of
some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and
inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The
object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of
naturalization,
was to make citizens of
the respective states. If we examine the language
closely, and according to the rules of rigid construction always
applicable to delegated powers, we will find that
the power to naturalize
in fact is not given to Congress, but simply the power to
establish an uniform rule .[A] distinction both in name and
privileges is made to exist between citizens of the United
States ex vi termini [ by the very meaning of the term
used. Reference is being made to those living in the District of
Columbia.], and citizens of the respective States.
To the former no
privileges or immunities are granted " Ex parte Knowles,
5 Ca. 300 (1855). (Emphasis added.)

"The 14th
Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States.
It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned
authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the
contrary,
that there was no such
thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first
becoming a citizen of some state." United States v.
Anthony
(1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830. (Emphasis added.)

"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of
the powers granted to the states and the federal government,
through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are
unconditionally sovereign within their respective states."
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L. Ed. 997.

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people
[state Citizens] and they are truly the sovereigns of the
country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463.

"The people of the state [state Citizens], as the successors
of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which
formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smaith, 4 Wendell 9 (NY) (1829).

The opinion of Judge John Appleton, of the Maine Supreme
Court, cannot be stressed too strongly, when he stated that in
the Dred Scott Decision, "Justice Taney says every person
recognized as citizens of the several states, became also
citizens of this new political body Taney s opinion, therefore,
rests upon a remarkable
and most unfortunate misapprehension of facts. Taney
would have concurred with (Justice) Curtis had the facts been
pointed out to him." (Emphasis added.)

"A fundamental right inherent in "state citizenship" is a
privilege or immunity of that citizenship only. Privileges and
immunities of "citizens of the United States," on the other
hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential
character of the national government, or as specifically granted
or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the
United States."
Twining v. New Jersey,
211 U.S. 78. (Emphasis added.)

"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that
the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
do not necessarily include all the rights and powers of the
Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment "
Maxwell v. Dow,
176 U.S. 598 (1900).

"[T]he 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative
and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle
controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new
restriction upon [state] citizenship."
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
169 US 649. (Emphasis added.)

"A citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the
same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. While the 14th
Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it
has the effect of making that citizenship paramount and dominant
instead of derivative and dependent upon state citizenship."
Colgate v. Harvey,
296 U. S. 404, 427. (Emphasis added. More is the pity.)

"The (14th) amendment referred to slavery.
Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions,
and for which Congress
was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then
in slavery." Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep.
5, 29. (Emphasis added.)

"Our Union in its foreign relations presents itself with all
its states and territories as one and indivisible; a garment
without a seam; but at home we are separate sovereign states of
the union. Within the limits of the states, the government of
the United States has no powers but those that have been
delegated to it." George Bancroft. (Emphasis added.)

After the adoption of the 13th Amendment a bill
which became the first Civil Rights Act was introduced in the 39th
Congress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the
recently freed Negroes all the civil rights secured to white
people No one but
citizens of the United States [i.e., the freed slaves]
were within the provisions of the Act. Cf.
Hague v. C. I. O.,
307 U. S. 496, 509. (Emphasis added.)

26 C.F.R. 1.911-2(h) Foreign Country "The term foreign country
when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under
the sovereignty of a government other than that of the [federal]
United States [such as Kentucky]."

"Foreigner. a person who is not a citizen or subject of the
state or country of which mention is made " Black s Law
Dictionary, 6th edition.

"The 14th Amendment, declaring that all persons
born or naturalized in the [District] United States and subject
to its allegiance are citizens, uses the word in the sense of
[federal] national or
subject. " Encyclopedia of Political Science, art.
"Nationality." (Emphasis added.)

"The natives of Puerto Rico and the other ceded islands are
[federal] United States nationals, or, as the learned Attorney
General prefers to term them, American
subjects."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 667. (Emphasis added.)

"In determining the boundaries of apparently conflicting
powers between the states and the general government, the proper
question is, not so much what has been, in terms, reserved to
the states, as what has been, expressly or by necessary
implication, granted by the people to the national government;
for each state possesses all the powers of an independent and
sovereign nation, except so far as they have been ceded away by
the constitution. The federal government
is but the creature of the people of the states, and, like an
agent appointed for definite and specific purposes, must show an
express or necessarily implied authority in the charter of its
appointment to give validity to its acts." People
ex rel. Attry. Gen. v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 234 (California
Supreme Court, 1850). (Emphasis added.)

"It scarcely needs to be said [sic!] that unless there has
been a transfer of jurisdiction [from state to federal] the
federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over
any area within a [s]tate " "Jurisdiction Over Areas Within the
States" A federal government report of 1956. (Emphasis added.)

" McCULLER, at a place within the
special maritime
and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, namely Wright Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio, on land acquired for the United States and
under its exclusive
jurisdiction, did take " (Emphasis added.) United
States of America v. ERNEST A. McCULLER, Case No. CR
3-95-73, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, charges filed August 10, 1995.

"The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law
immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign
Citizen of Michigan [or, say, California]." Will v. Michigan
Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d. 45, 109
S. Ct. 2304 (1988).

"Congress exercises its confirmed powers subject to the
limitations contained in the Constitution. If a state ratifies
or gives consent to any authority which is not specifically
granted by the Constitution of the United States, it is null and
void. State officials cannot consent to the enlargement of
powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution."
Sandra Day O Connor,
New York v. United States, et al.,
488 U.S. 1041

"The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution
admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their
admission by a distinction between what they call
internal and
external
taxation.
The former they
would reserve to the State governments; the latter,
which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on
imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to
the federal head." Alexander Hamilton, TheFederalist
36. (Emphasis added.)

"A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if this
birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is
sovereign." 3A Am Jur 1420, art. Aliens and Citizens.

"The law is that income from sources not effectively
connected with the conduct of a trade or business
within the U.S.
Government
(sic) is not subject to any tax under subtitle "A" of the
Internal Revenue Code." Letter in response to a Privacy Act
request dated 12/12/95, by Cynthia J. Hills, Disclosure Officer,
IRS, Service Center, Philadelphia, PA. (Emphasis added.)

In the 1920s, Pulitzer Prize winner for his writings on
American Law, Charles Warren, said that "[h]ad the
[Slaughterhouse cases] been decided otherwise the States would
have largely lost their autonomy and become, as political
entities, only of historic interest The boundary lines between
the States and the National Government wound be practically
abolished, and the rights of the citizens of each state would be
irrevocably fixed as of the date of the Fourteenth Amendment."
It was "one of the landmarks of American law." But, this has
come to pass, and almost everyone claims to be a federal
District citizen swearing to it on every 1040 Form.

Before the 14th Amendment, in 1868, "it had been
said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United
States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing
the Union. Those, therefore, who were born and always resided in
the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within
the United States,
were not citizens
[After that] the distinction between citizenship of the United
States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized. Not
only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a
citizen of a state [e.g., if born in D.C.], but an important
element is necessary to make the former the latter. He must
reside in the state to make him a citizen of it,
but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized
in the United States to become a citizen of the Union.
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 72, 74 (1873).

Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway [sic]
Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that income
accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the
bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is
subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.

Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption
designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, but are liable
for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income
"from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or
profession carried on in the United States," computed upon the
basis prescribed in the law.

The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of
nonresident aliens, who are in charge of the property owned or
business carried on within the United States, shall make a full
and complete return of the income therefrom on Form 1040,
revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional,
assessed upon the income received by them in behalf of their
nonresident alien principals.

The person, firm, company, copartnership, corporation,
joint-stock company, or association, and insurance company in
the United States, citizen or resident alien, in whatever
capacity acting, having the control, receipt, disposal, or
payment of fixed or determinable annual or periodic gains,
profits, and income of whatever kind, to a nonresident alien,
under any contract or otherwise, which payment shall represent
income of a nonresident alien from the exercise of any trade or
profession within the United States, shall deduct and withhold
from such annual or periodic gains, profits, and income,
regardless of amount, and pay to the officer of the United
States Government authorized to receive the same such sum as
will be sufficient to pay the normal tax of 1 per cent imposed
by law, and shall make an annual return on Form 1042.

The normal tax shall be withheld at the source from income
accrued to nonresident aliens from corporate obligations and
shall be returned and paid to the Government by debtor
corporations and withholding agents as in the case of citizens
and resident aliens, but without benefit of the specific
exemption designated in paragraph C of the law.

Form 1008, revised, claiming the benefit of such deductions
as may be applicable to income arising within the United States
and for refund of excess tax withheld, as provided by paragraphs
B and P of the income-tax law, may be filed by nonresident
aliens, their agents or representatives, with the debtor
corporation, withholding agent, or collector of internal revenue
for the district in which the withholding return is required to
be made.

That part of paragraph E of the law which provides that "if
such person is absent from the United States the return and
application may be made for him or her by the person required to
withhold and pay the tax " is held to be applicable to the
return and application on Form 1008, revised, of nonresident
aliens.

A fiduciary acting in the capacity of trustee, executor, or
administrator, when there is only one beneficiary and that
beneficiary a nonresident alien, shall render a return on Form
1040, revised; but when there are two or more
beneficiaries, one or all of whom are nonresident aliens, the
fiduciary shall render a return on Form 1041, revised, and a
personal return on Form 1040, revised, for each nonresident
alien beneficiary.

The liability, under the provisions of the law, to render
personal returns, on or before March 1 next succeeding the tax
year, of annual net income accrued to them from sources within
the United States during the preceding calendar year, attaches
to nonresident aliens as in the case of returns required from
citizens and resident aliens. Therefore, a return on Form
1040, revised, is required except in cases where the total tax
liability has been or is to be satisfied at the source by
withholding or has been or is to be satisfied by personal return
on Form 1040, revised, rendered in their behalf. Returns
shall be rendered to the collector of internal revenue for the
district in which a nonresident alien carries on his principal
business within the United States or, in the absence of a
principal business within the United States and in all cases of
doubt, the collector of internal revenue at Baltimore, Md., in
whose district Washington is situated.

Nonresident aliens are held to be subject to the liabilities
and requirements of all administrative, special, and general
provisions of law in relation to the assessment, remission,
collection, and refund of the income tax imposed by the act of
October 3, 1913, and collectors of internal revenue will make
collection of the tax by distraint, garnishment, execution, or
other appropriate process provided by law.

So much of T.D. 1976 as relates to ownership certificate
1004, T.D. 1977 (certificate Form 1060), 1988 (certificate Form
1060), T.D. 2017 (nontaxability of interest from bonds and
dividends on stock), T.D. 2030 (certificate Form 1071), T.D.
2162 (nontaxability of interest from bonds and dividends on
stock) and all rulings heretofore made which are in conflict
herewith are hereby superseded and repealed.